Paar UME TF 
Nba ‘ } 

Sgt CAN 

t ys, 

aN 


Mie 


Ki aps) 
Men's ‘ 
Ns SORT 


suieavs 


ae 


‘ hy ania 


a4 
‘ a a Me 


‘ rats Halt i vis 
aha ait Pen vi 


ia a} yi 
vay K ns We. 
1 


4 ry 
“ct y rede Te, 


ARTS cee 


a>Y Ay ‘A 


Ren. 


Mayas 
waite 


Kis 


oa 
CP oCLe 


Sj \Wiey 
Aaa HATE. 


us iba) oh 
Satya, hae 


i 4 cn ety’ revels 
‘ 


Ma, 
1a.) LA 
PAXTON yA, | 


beradcent 
y 


gj 


ate 

tis 
; 1 We Wy 
n he SIRS 


J. = 


“he 
aay) Nes a 
4 / 


yoke ASAE aNbetts heal 


Lae 


tebe ea kct ti Burra 


sett a 


a o =< 
Sp er 2 
5S SS ee 


Se SSS 


44; A We ) 
ne 
Si 


BAT DEY ; 
Aon) AY hy ops het 


SiN Aas 


3 


TALS 
s iat 


(A 


Eb 
Hi) ae vee Migs 
EADS AN 
oat Diy an 
ey Seth 


fi 
Vi 
he! 
A, Wet i 
* 
by 
Mii 


4 
ty 
A” 
iy 


¥2% 


ase et 


oy 
ae AGE 


pie 
Att 
a 


oy ii sy petal 


fa 
Ads} sis 


bey ’y 


Sai 


oath ba We 


i Ie ae 


nome 
= 


. nt 


nS Ry 

My ay { a | 
Me one os 

me ne 


*, a Y 
REA ty 
a eh psy 


er 
i AE Ao 3 50 


ee ss Dia : 


‘ 


. 


ao 


ehh 
OF BAECS 


on 


y ( 
Wat vee Hah), 
a ea a 


en 


_ 


rs 
— 


ene 
ae 
cae 


oF eat 


As | 


iy 
ekixe 
AGIA oh 


. 


“gs 
Bee a 


eA 
yy 


} Me a. 


TAL AS 
ALS AS) 
€> XP aoe 


vs Ken 
le 


hips 
AS 


‘ Me ie 


‘ae 


a . 
aS 


vie i iy 


PAG me Be 
Seen 


ee 
aoe 


5 
re 
ve 


a 


ee 
wie HAY 























. - be) A 
Te) Vee? | “Ll 

: | ‘ 

ae 





ay Coie. 
Ae ah ep) whe “ae 
Yo . : 4 
a Beh bel 





PLUTARCH 


AS A SOURCE OF 
INFORMATION 


ON THE GREEK THEATER 


BY 


ROY CASTON FLICKINGER, Px.D.h\/ 


SOMETIME FELLOW AND ASSISTANT IN GREEK 
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 








BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT HILL, MASS, 
CHICAGO 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
1904 





“PA2203 
FG 


CoPpyRIGHT 1904 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


1314004 


August, 1904 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
PREFACE - - - - - - - - - - - 4 
INTRODUCTION - - - - - - - - - - 5-7 
CRITERIA - - : - - - - - - - - 8-9 
Piurarcn’s Metuop or Deatina with His Sources” - - 10-22 
a) Plutarch Compared with His Source” - - - - 11 
b) Plutarch Compared with Himself — - - - - 17 

c) Plutarch Compared with Another User of the Same 
Source - - : - : - 19 
d) Plutarch Compared with Other weidunte - - - 20 
THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH - - - - - - - 238-59 
A. @Qéarpov - - - - - - - - - - 23 
B. ’Opxiorpa- - - - - - . - - - 26 
C. Ovpédr\n - > - - - - - - - - 28 
D. Sxnvi4 - - : - - - - - - - 38 
E. Tpooxjvov = = - . . - - - 51 
F. Idpodos 2 7 2 7 7 s : : * 53 
G. Aoyetov - - 7 = ~ a : “ ~~ - 54 
ONGERSION) thy, iy Wes Wit te Mim tp ea hey - - 60-64 


PREFACE. 


My original plan was to collect and present all that. Plutarch 
teaches us concerning the Greek drama and theater, with the 
secondary idea of discovering his literary method in dealing with 
incidents involving these subjects. It soon became apparent, 
however, that this was too large a theme for treatment in a doc- 
tor’s dissertation. Accordingly, I have restricted myself to his 
testimony on the theater alone and, still more particularly, to the 
consideration of his value as a witness on the theater. Thus, I 
have in hand an abundance of material which I hope to use in 
further studies in Plutarch. 

It is fitting in this place to express my gratitude to my teach- 
ers: to Professors Robert Baird and Daniel Bonbright, of North- 
western University, who directed my undergraduate studies in 
the classics; to Professor John A. Scott, of the same institution, 
who first encouraged me to graduate work; and to those to whom 
I am indebted for most of my graduate instruction, Professors 
Paul Shorey, William Gardner Hale, F. F. Abbott, George L. 
Hendrickson, and Edward Capps, of the University of Chicago, 
and more particularly to the last-named, who suggested this 
paper and has given me the benefit of his constant criticism and 
advice in its preparation. 


Roy C. FLICKINGER. 
EpwortH UNIVERSITY, 


Oklahoma City, Okla. — 


INTRODUCTION. 


PERHAPS the most valuable permanent results already derived 
from the extensive and minute examination by competent arche- 
ologists of the numerous theater ruins which have been unearthed 
in many parts of Greece during the past quarter-century are, 
firstly, the recognition of the fact that all ancient theaters are no 
longer to be classified under the two general Vitruvian types, 
“Greek” and “Roman,” but rather under a larger number of 
categories, varying according to time, place, and purpose; and, 
secondly, the necessity, which has arisen from the recognition of 
this fact, of submitting all the evidence, and especially the literary 
evidence, to a renewed critical examination. It is not enough to 
have traced the development in meaning of the various technical 
terms through a series of authors chronologically arranged, valu- 
able as this work is; first of all, the more important authors must 
themselves be singly studied in order that the nature and the 
proper application of the testimony they offer may be known. 
At the present time only a beginning has been made in this 
fundamental task without which a historical account of the Greek 
theater cannot be written. With the application of only such 
precautions as the nature of the evidence, often vague and allusive, 
often intelligible only by reference to the ruins or to later phrase- 
ological usage, demands, the extant plays and the fourth-century 
writers can, of course, be used unhesitatingly as witnesses for the 
contemporaneous theater at Athens. No reference in later writers, 
however, can be safely applied to the Athenian theater of the 
fourth and fifth centuries until such a course has been justified by 
a consideration of the author’s evidence in general and of the 
bearing of the particular passage. Thus, Noack,’ for example, has 
made it seem very probable that Vitruvius depended mainly upon 
Asia Minor sources for his knowledge of Greek architecture, while 
Rohde’ has thrown light upon the difficult questions of the sources 


1 Cf. ‘* Das Proskenion in der Theaterfrage,”’ Philologus, Vol. LVIII (1899), pp. 1 ff. 
2Cf. De Iulii Pollucis in apparatu scaenico enarrando fontibus (1870). 


5 


6 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


followed by Pollux. These authorities are in a measure controlled 
by the study of their sources; but for most writers the considera- 
tion of the manner in which they treated their originals is equally 
important. Consequently, it is safe to say that, until the more 
prominent later authors who discuss or refer to the Greek theater 
shall have been critically examined in some such fashion, many of 
the vexing problems of Greek scenic antiquities will obtain no 
satisfactory solution.’ 

It was with the purpose of contributing somewhat to this kind of 
preliminary investigation that the present study was undertaken. 
Plutarch is rich in allusions to the theater. Some of these allu- 
sions, seemingly to the Athenian theater of the fourth century, 
have caused no little difficulty to students of the subject. His 
works are so voluminous and so varied, range so freely in subject- 
matter from the earliest times to his own day, and touch upon so 
many different localities in the Graeco-Roman world, that few 
writers, on the one hand, have contributed more references to 
scenic institutions and scenic terminology in our handbooks, while 
few, on the other, need to be used with greater discrimination. 
And such caution is required in a still greater degree because of 
the uncertainty which necessarily attends the reconstruction of 
those theater ruins to which it is generally assumed that he refers. 
Whatever the age or location of the theater to which he seems to 
allude, his words cannot confidently be applied, for example, either 
to Dérpfeld’s or to Puchstein’s* reconstructions until the nature of 
the evidence he furnishes is determined. But once this is done, 
it may become possible to test by his evidence the correctness of 
the deductions which have been made from the existing ruins. 
To this end it is necessary to establish criteria by which his allu- 


1ScHuuzx, ‘‘ Lukianos als Quelle fiir die Kenntnis der Tragddie,” Jahrbiicher fiir clas- 
sische Philologie, Vol. CXXXV (1887), pp. 117 ff., was more interested in other sides of the 
question than in that involving theater construction and did not attempt to determine the 
applicability to various periods of the evidence supplied by Lucian; while WALDEN, 
“Stage Terms in Heliodorus’s Aethiopica,’’ Harvard Studies, Vol. V (1894), pp. 1 ff., gave a 
bare list of material which is itself limited in scope, belongs to a period of little interest, 
and involves no question of source or periods. WEISSMANN, Neue philologische Rund- 
schau (1899), pp. 394 f., and (1903), p. 606, pointed out that a separate treatment of the 
later writers was needed. WHEISSMANN’S own article, ‘‘Die scenischen Anweisungen in den 
Scholien und ihre Bedeutung fir die Bihnenkunde”’ (1896), perhaps approaches most nearly 
the aim of the present paper. 


2DORPFELD-REISCH, Das griechische Theater (1896), and PucHSTEIN, Die griechische 
Biihne (1901). 


INTRODUCTION 7 


sions to theaters of his own day may be distinguished from those 
referring to earlier periods, and to consider how exactly he fol- 
lowed his sources when speaking of earlier theaters. We may then 
apply these results to the material which he provides, and in the 
light of his literary method may discuss more definitely the bear- 
ing of his testimony upon the terminology of the theater and 
upon its structural history. 


CRITERIA. 


Ir is obvious at the start that Plutarch will convey many items 
of information concerning other periods than his own. It is 
inevitable that any writer who describes antecedent events shall 
employ words and phrases which have been coined and have come 
into general use since the events treated; 7. e., he necessarily 
modernizes his account to a greater or less degree. On the other 
hand, he is likely to try to retain the technical terms of the period 
with which he is dealing and to use them in the meanings then 
current. Such an attempt is more to be expected in a modern 
than in an ancient writer, and is seldom completely successful. 
How far Plutarch makes this attempt and how far he succumbs to 
the tendency to modernize will appear only upon examination. 
In the meanwhile the material must be sifted in such a manner as 
to avoid possible error in either direction. It is apparent that all 
passages taken from those writings in which Plutarch or his 
friends appear as participants in the dialogue, or in which con- 
temporaneous events are described, must apply to the contemporary 
theater, unless the opposite is distinctly stated. Under the same 
category must be included also the passages which contain 
general allusions to the theater or its parts, or to matters 
involving the theater or its parts, and which are entirely inde- 
pendent of specific time, place, and occasion. In these passages 
(mostly figures of speech or parenthetical remarks) we must assume 
that Plutarch had in mind but one type of theater, and that, too, 
one which was perfectly familiar to his readers as well as to him- 
self. Therefore, if the principles laid down are sound, information 
drawn from passages of these two sorts (which for convenience 
will hereafter be referred to as “‘general’’) should always be con- 
sistent with itself and should conform to that given us by other 
contemporaneous writers similarly situated. Contrariwise, all 
anecdotes or statements that are employed as having reference 
to a particular theater at a particular time or occasion before 
Plutarch’s day, and all sayings that are given as the bona fide 

8 


ORITERIA 9 


utterances of persons antecedent to Plutarch, must be classified 
under a different category. Such passages (which will hereafter 
be referred to as ‘‘specific’’) may contain information relative 
either to the theater of Plutarch’s day or to that of the period 
described, according to our author’s habit in such matters; until 
that has been discovered, they must be considered separately. 


PLUTARCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS 
SOURCES. 


Ir is conceivable that Plutarch should have employed his 
originals in any one of four ways: (1) he may have reproduced 
them practically without change, as Athenaeus so often does, pre- 
serving accounts in their appropriate contemporaneous dress, or 
at least going astray only when his source did so likewise; (2) he 
may have felt free to alter his original to suit his pleasure, 
retaining the substance and perhaps the catchwords of the account 
before him, but introducing new turns of expression, and more 
picturesque and vivid details; (8) he may have gone still farther 
in his freedom of treatment and brought all technical allusions into 
accord with the terminology of his own day; and (4) he may have 
combined the last two methods, pursuing now one, now the other. 
On the first two hypotheses his theatrical references are to be used 
in explaining the theater structure and terminology contem- 
poraneous with the event described or with the source employed, 
when that was not contemporaneous; on the third, they give an 
insight into the theater of his own time; and on the fourth, he 
cannot safely be quoted as a source for scenic antiquities at all, 
except in cases where the exact condition of the theater to which 
he refers is independently known. 

In treating this topic there are four possible avenues of 
approach, viz.: by a comparison (a) of Plutarch with his source, 
when that is known and extant; (b) of Plutarch with himself, 
when he gives the same account in two or more places; (c) of 
Plutarch with some other writer who followed the same source; 
and (d) of Plutarch with other evidence which we possess, though 
his source is either not definitely known or not extant. It is 
apparent that, when it is perfectly certain what previous account 
Plutarch was using, (a) is the most profitable line of investiga- 
tion; though unfortunately we can rarely be confident that a 

10 


PLUTARCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES Ee 


particular source was in fact followed." Next in importance, and 
under the circumstances most satisfactory, is (b), which has never 
received due recognition as a criterion for use in this and many 
other cases where it would prove extremely important. The least 
convincing method is (c), which would be valueless without the 
others, but is useful as lending confirmation to them; while the 
value of (d) varies with the circumstances of each case. 

a) Plutarch compared with his source.’—There can be little 


1Cf. the controversy as to whether Plutarch used directly ARISTOTLE’s Constitution of 
Athens. The early bibliography is given by Sandys. WrRiIGHT’s arguments (Harvard 
Studies, Vol. III [1892], pp. 25 ff.), even if accepted at full value, prove simply that Aristotle 
was not the main immediate source, and by no means that he was not an immediate source 
at all. His proofs are (1) that in the thirty-eight passages of the Solon which bear a resem- 
blance to the Resp. Ath. Aristotle is mentioned but once; (2) that the resemblances, the dis- 
similarities, and the discrepancies alike are intelligible only on the supposition that Plutarch 
was transcribing from some work in which an abridgment of these parts of the Resp. Ath. 
was embodied, and that in transcribing from this abridgment he interpolated foreign 
matter, which is inconsistent with the unabridged Aristotle; and (3) that the omission in 
the Themistocles of the characteristic anecdote of Themistocles, Ephialtes, and the Areopagus 
(Resp. Ath., c. 25) is unaccountable except on the hypothesis that the copy of Aristotle’s 
work used by Plutarch did not contain this story. As regards (3), we can scarcely consider 
ourselves infallible judges of what stories Plutarch would consider ‘‘ characteristic’? and 
illustrative of 780s. Moreover, Plutarch often tells anecdotes elsewhere which do not occur 
in the Life of the hero concerned. Therefore we cannot expect that he should tell on every 
occasion all the appropriate stories known to him, nor yet assume that every anecdote he 
read or heard seemed to him equally memorable. Consequently, the omission of Aristotle’s 
anecdote in the Themistocles does not warrant the hypothesis set up. As to (2), the following 
pages will show to a certain extent what Plutarch was capable of in the treatment of a 
source. Furthermore, we must allow him the privilege of contaminotio, and that means 
that the resultant fusion would almost necessarily contain items inconsistent with any one 
of the primary accounts. Wright’s first argument ignores the fact that Plutarch habitually 
suppressed the authorities whom he most extensively followed (cf. GUDEMAN, The Sources 
of Plutarch’s Life of Cicero [1902], pp. 4f.). The same objections hold good against 
WILAMOWITZ’S arguments (Aristoteles und Athen [1893], Vol. I, pp. 299 ff.), which belong to 
the same three types and are not conclusive. Plutarch was probably familiar with the 
Resp. Ath. in its present form and used it on occasion. It is true that the more trivial 
narratives of the inferior writers supplied in greater abundance the matter he needed than 
did the great historians, but we need not suppose that he entirely neglected the latter for 
the outline of historical events or for controlling the minor authors. Failure to recognize 
Plutarch’s entire freedom in using his sources, both in reproducing them and in fusing 
them, may lead us to minimize his dependence upon standard authorities, It is not unlikely 
that we should not find any more striking resemblances than now, even if Theopompus and 
the rest were extant. Even the express warning in Nicias, 1, has not prevented our reducing 
Thucydides’s contribution to that Life to the vanishing-point (cf. HEIDINGSFELD, Quomodo 
Plut. Thuc. usus sit incompon. Nic, vita [1890], p. 24). Now, Plutarch was astylist as wellasa 
raconteur, and whenever he found a phrase that pleased him he reserved it in his memory 
for use. Thus the 70 dAdo otpatevpa vixynOév KkatnpaxOn és Ta Tetxionata of THUC., VII, 6, 3, 
reappears in Fab. Maz., 8, and Sertor., 19,in a totally different connection, and there are 
enough similar instances to show that Plutarch was a close student of the historian. 
Hitherto the study of the relationship between Plutarch and the Resp. Ath. has been con- 
fined to such passages as cover the same events; I have no doubt that a broader survey 
would reveal many points of stylistic indebtedness. 


2Since passages involving theatrical matters are alone sufficient and more to the point, 
the following examples are restricted to that field. 


12 PLUTAROH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


doubt that Plutarch’s account of the bringing of the tidings of 
Leuctra to Sparta was derived from Xenophon, who is indeed 
mentioned in the same chapter. A comparison of the accounts, 
however, removes even the slightest doubt as to the relationship.’ 


Xen., Heill., VI, 4, 16. Agesilaus,’ 29. 
a yevonevwy S€ TovTuv, c éruxe pov yap 4 moALs EopTHV 
b 6 peév eis THY Aaxedaipova ayye- dyovoa Kat évwv ovoa perry’ 
Adv 76 7TaD0s adixvetrat yupvorradian yap Hoav, 


> / a 2 A / S 
aywvigonevwv xopav év TO Dear pw 


a“ » ~ 
C  yvpvorradiOv Te OVaNS THs TEdEV- 
mapjoav 8 amd Aevxtpwv ot THY 


CR. 


Taias Kal 
Tov dvdpiKod xopov évdov dvTos * cuppopav amayyéeAXovTes. 


d 
e ot de dopo, e ot de Epopo, 
f énei yxoveav 7d 7a00s, éXuTodtvTo =f = Kairep «edObs OvTOs KaTadavois 
MEV, WOTEP, Ola, aVayKY * Ore OuepOapra: TA mpdypata Kal 
g Tov pevTou xopov ov eEjyayov, TV apxnv aroAwAéKacwy, 
h adda diaywvicaGar eiwv. g ovre yopov e&eAbeiy eciacay ovre 
i Kal Ta pev ovou“ata mpos Tovs TO OXHpa THS EopTns petaBadetv 
oiketous €xaoTov Tov TeOvedtwv THY TOW, 
amédocav. i @AXa kar’ oikiav Tov TeOvedT wv 
Tois mpoojKovor Ta dvopuata 
TeUWavTes 


h avrot ta wept tHv Oéay Kal Tov 
ayava THY xopOv ExpatTov. 

A more detailed comparison of the corresponding sections, as 
they are indicated by the letters, gives a striking glimpse of 
Plutarch’s method: Clause a is purely transitional and has no 
counterpart in the biography. In b the singular participle is 
replaced by the plural, eis Aaxedaiuova by aro Aevetpwv, 1abos 
by oupdpopav, and aduixveirar by taphoav—all simple verbal 
changes. In c Plutarch has omitted teXevta/as and has written 
a prefatory statement which adds no fact except &vav ovca 
peor, which is of course too commonplace an observation to postu- 
late another source. These changes also are purely verbal or in 
the direction of picturesqueness. In d yopod is replaced by the 


10f. HEEREN, De fontibus et auctoritate Vit. Paral. Plutarchi (1820), p. 47, and Have, 
Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Griechen (1883), p. 56. 


2 As a consideration of the genuineness of Plutarch’s writings would be out of place 
here, I have accepted all the Lives, and for the Moralia have followed the judgment of 
Bernardakis, who in his edition rejects sixteen of the seventy-eight essays in the first six 
volumes; his seventh volume (containing fragments, etc.) has nothing bearing upon the 
present study. Citations are to the editions of Sintenis (2d ed.) and Bernardakis (1888-96) 
respectively. 


PLUTARCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES LS 


plural, évdov by év T@ Oeadtpw,' avdpixod is omitted, and aywufope- 
vov added—all being alterations without significance. The 
clauses marked e are identical. In f ovtos catadavovs is substi- 
tuted for 7xoveav, and for éAvrodvTo a Stu clause giving the men- 
tal picture that caused their Avrn. In g Plutarch employs 
éEeAOciv elacav instead of é&jyayov, and introduces the clause 
TO... . mod, which adds nothing to the thought. He amplifies 
h by the employment of his favorite 7a mepi etd. periphrasis, but 
the general meaning is the same. Finally, in 7 o/xedovs is replaced 
by mpoonxovet, arédocay by méuravtes, and «a7 oixiav, a vivid 
detail, is added. In spite of all these verbal changes and this 
transposition of clauses, not a single item of consequence has 
escaped the biographer, while he has added several graphic 
touches, and he has, moreover, retained all the catchwords of the 
original; cf. ayyéAX@, yupvortradiar, yopds, Epopo, eEdyw (é&€pyo- 
pat), and Ta ovepata Tav TeOvewtwv. These similarities are entirely 
too close and too numerous to be explained on the hypothesis 
of an intermediate source, while at the same time the variations 
afford us an interesting insight into Plutarch’s literary method. 

It is equally certain that the description of the scene at the 
proclamation of Grecian liberty at the Isthmian games is taken 
from Polybius.’ 


Polyb., XVIII, 46, 1-10 (ed. Biittner-Wobst). Flamininus, 10. 


4, \ , 
dofdvrwy dé TovTwr, 

\ ig ’ / lA > / 
Kal THS “loOpuiwv ravnyvpews éreAPovoys, 
Kat oxedov amd maons THS olikovpévys TOV 
emipaveotatwv avopOv cuveAndrvOdrwv did THY 
mpoodokiav Tov aToBnoopever, 
moAAot Kat mouktAo. Ka’ GAnv THY TaviyyupLY 
> 7 , lal ‘\ > , Ss 
éverimTov Aoyo., Tov pev aOvvaTov elvar a- 

e “a 

oxovtwv Pwpaiovs éviwy amootnva: TOmwY Kal 

/ Lal \ / 4 “~ X\ > 
moAewv, TOV Se diopilouevwy oT. TOV pev ez- 
> 
gavav elvar SoxowwTwv Torwy amrooTHcoVTaL, 


‘\ X\ , XN 4 > / , 
tovs b& davtaciav pev éxovras eAdTTo, Xpelav 


> , S99 4 
IoOpuiwv ovv dyomevwv 
TAHG0s pev avOpworwv 
2 al 4 a 
év TO oTadiw KaOnaTo 
TOV yupviKOV ay@va 
Jewpevov, 
e 67 } \ / 
ota 81 dua xpovwy mre- 
TAVLEVYS [LEV TOAELWY 
THs EAAdébos én’ éAri- 
ow éArevGepias, cape 
\ > 4 4, 
dé elpjvy mavnyupifov- 
ons, 


1 There is, of course, no question of the fact; cf. HERop., VI, 67. 
2 Cf. HEEREN, op. cit., p. 124, and H. Permr, Die Quellen Plutarchsin den Biographieen der 


Rémer (1865), p. 80. Inasmuch as Livy, XX XIII, 32, gives the names in g in a much different 
order, Peter uses these as test passages in establishing Plutarch’s use of Polybius in this 
Life. 


14 


PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


St rhv abriv mapexeoOar Suvapevous KabéSover. 
cal rovrovs ebOéws éredeikvucav avtot Kaé’ 
abtav Sia THs mpds AAAS ebpecrdoyias. 
roudrns 8’ ovons év Tois dvOpurots THs daropias, 
GOporbévros Tod wAHBovs eis TO oTad.ov emt 
TOV ay@va, 

mpoe\Oov & Kypv§ Kal <Kara>owmynodpevos 
7a 7AYOn Sia Tod cadmiKTod Tobe <TO> 
Knpvyp’ avnyopevoev™ 

4 ovykAntos 4 ‘Pwpatwy Kai Tiros Koitvtios 
oTpatnyos vraros, KaramoNepnoavtes Bacrr<a 
@irurmov Kat MaxeSdvas, adiacw éAEevbEpovs, 
adpoupyrovs, doporoyyTous, vop0Ls XPw_Eevous 
Tots matpios, KopiwOiovs, Pwxéas, Aoxpors, 
EvBoeis, “Axotols trois PGiwras, Mayvyrtas, 
@errarovs, epparBovs. 

kporov 8° év dpxais eiOews earciov yevoue- 
vou, TLWeés pey OVO’ yKOVTAY TOU KYPUYLATOS, 
tes 5¢ radu dxovew éBovrovTo. TO dé OAD 
Lépos Tv avOpdrwv SiariaTovpevov Kal SoKovv 
ws av el Kad? Urvov dKove TOV Aeyopnevwr Oud Td 
mapdasoSov Tod cvpPBatvovtos, mas Tis && GAANS 
dpyuns €Bda mpodyev Tov KnpuKa Kal Tov dad- 
mUTHV eis LETOV TO OTAOLOV Kal A€yeLy TaALV 
irép tOv avTadv, ws pev épot Soxel, Bovdo- 
pevov Tov avOpmrwv pi) povov aKxovew adrAG 
kat BAérew tov A€yovta dia THv amuotiav TOV 
dvayopevoevov. 

ws 5 wadw 6 xnpvé, mpoeAOav cis TO pécov 
Kal KaTaciwwrnodpevos OL TOD GadmLKTOD TOV 
OdpvBov, avnyopevoe tavTa Kal waavrws Tots 
mpoabev, tyALKovTov ovveByn Katappaynvat TOV 
KpoTov wore Kal py padiws av bd THY évvotay 
ayayely Tois viv dxovovat TO yeyovds: 

ws O€ wore katéAngev 6 Kporos, Tav pev dOAn- 


TOv atAGs ovdels ovdEeva Adyov elyev Ere. 


f tHoddmyy. 8 ovwr}s 


cis dravras dad0bei- 
ons mpoeAOwv «is 
pécov 6 Knpué avetrer, 
ott ‘Pwpaiwy 9 ovy- 
KAntos Kat Tiros Koiv- 
TLOS OTpaTHyoOS V7ra- 
Tos, KaTaToAEuynoay- 
res BactArAca Bidurmov 
kat Maxedcvas, adia- 
aw dadpovpytovs Kat 
éXevPepous nal adopo- 
Aoyynrovs, vopwors Xpw- 
pevous Tols matpiots, 
Kopwv6iovs, Aoxpos, 
EiBoeas, 
PO.wTas, 


Pukets, 
"A xaovds 
Mayvyrtas, Oerradous, 
TlepparBovs. 
TO pev OvV TPATOV OV 
/ Ls Qn 
mdvy TaVvTES OVE Ta- 
h&s éxnKovoav, add’ 
dvwpardos Kal QGopv- 
, , > 3 
Bwdyns Kivnois Hv év 
/ , 
otadio OavpalovTwv 
‘ / 
Kat dcarvvOavopevwv 
Kal mdAw dveuretv 
KeAevovTwv’ 
ws 8? atOis Hovyias 
yevomevns dvayayiv 6 
a“ \ \ 
Kypvé THY pwviv mpo- 
Ouporepov eis AravTas 
éyeywver kat SundOe 76 
/, ‘\ X\ 
Knpvypa, Kpavyy ev 
” \ / \ 
dmatos TO weyeBos dud 
Xapav €xwper péxpe 
, 
Oararrys, 
> ‘\ X 9 la \ 
opOov dé dvecaTy KEL TO 
Gear pov, 
ovdels dé Adyos Hv Ta 


> , 
dywvil oevwv. 


PLUTAROCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES 15 


The comparative compactness and vigor of the later narrative 
appear at a glance. Upon closer examination, however, the 
differences are still more striking. Clause ain Polybius is purely 
transitional, and consequently is omitted in the parallel account. 
In b the changes are verbal and in the direction of brevity. 
Clause c is pure exaggeration and rhetorical flourish, and is omitted 
entirely in the biographer. Clause d is prolix and hopelessly 
retards the movement; accordingly, Plutarch has entirely rewritten 
it in a form which preserves all the essential ideas and does not 
interrupt the flow of the story. Verbal changes occur in e, 
aOpo.cGevtos being replaced by ca@jaoto, and avOpwrev Gewpévov 
and yupuixdv being added; but the result is a living picture, while 
the original was colorless. In f the words of the original are 
kept for the most part, though their order and grammatical forms 
are changed; aveivev replaces the longer periphrasis in Polybius. 
The proclamation itself (q) is practically identical in both accounts. 
In h 76 mpa@rov replaces év apyais; the lively and vivid phrase 
avoparos cal OopyBadns Kivnows, the commonplace «pdtov ... . 
yevouevov; the single participle @avpalovTwr, the whole essence 
of To dé... . oupBaivovtros; and mad averreiv KedevovTwv, the 
tedious was ... . avtov, which runs into os ... . avayopevo- 
pévwov—a sprawling parenthesis which Plutarch wisely omits 
entirely, together with mwés 6€ .... éBovrovTo above. In 
i Polybius makes an otiose repetition of the formula used in 
f, for which Plutarch simply substitutes avOis jovylas yevopevns; 
avayayov ... . Tpodvpdtepoy is an amplification of avnyopevce 

. mpdcbev; Kpavyn replaces KpdéTov; amiatos TO péyeOos, the 
labored ore . . . . yeyovds; and éywpe, the cvvéBn katappaynvac 
of Polybius; while 8a yapav, and especially wéyps Gararrns, are 
points of life and interest that add in no small degree to the 
picture. Plutarch is alone responsible also for k—a realistic 
touch which entirely escaped the prosaic historian. Finally, in 7 
the unnecessary >. . . . kpdtos clause is omitted, while aywufo- 
pévov replaces 40AnT@v, and the impersonal form of the verbal 
expression the personal. 

It thus appears that Plutarch has treated this passage with 
even more freedom than the previous one; yet the connection 


16 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


between them is shown by the ideas expressed, the general order 
of their arrangement, and the use of catchwords. Polybius 
abounds in repetitions and irrelevant and parenthetical remarks 
which seriously delay the recital. Plutarch has lopped off the 
unnecessary members, molded the remainder into a continuous 
whole, and added several details which make the scene a living 
reality, though they might have happened at any gathering at all 
similar and do not presuppose an eyewitness to suggest them to 
Plutarch. 

The most striking, and at the same time the most certain, 
instance in this category still remains to be discussed. 


[Aristotle], Probl., XI, 25. Non posse suav., p. 1096 AB. 
dua Ti, dtav axvpwId- Tis xopos ... . ovTws evppavey “Exikovpov kat 
ow at épxnotpar, nttrov Myrpddwpov, ws “ApiororeAn Kal @eddpacrov Kat 
ol xopol yeywvacu ; Atxaiapxov kat “lepwvupov of epi yopav Adyou Kal 
didackarkidy Kal ta 8’ avrdAdv mpoBAnpata Kal 
pvOuav Kal appwovidv; otov.... ti Symote TaHV 
Ocdrpwv av dxvpa THs 6pxnotpas KaTacKedacys 7 
xovv, 6 Aads' tudpdAodvrar. 

Plutarch was peculiarly fond of questions like this. One of 
his largest works, the Quaestiones conviviales, is entirely occu- 
pied with them. It is a priori probable, then, that he always 
kept a copy of the Problems within easy reach and had conned it 
many times. This circumstance, together with the fact that 
Aristotle is mentioned by name, argues against the use of an 
intermediate source. Yet the variations introduced are startling. 
Ava ti is represented by a simple t/, drav by dv, ayvpwOdow by 
axupa KatacKeddons 7) yxodv, ai dpyqotpar by THs opynotpas TOV 


1Pal., Harleianus, and Ven.2 read xoxyéos, and the text has been suspected. Because of 
the Aristotelian original Wyttenbach suggested 6 xopés. Reiske proposed 6 hxos and referred 
to Quaestt. conv., p. 721B, where this word occurs in connection with dwr) tudAodrac, In 
accordance with his desire to emphasize the acoustic effect of a floor (cf. pp. 52 f., below), 
PUCHSTEIN (Griechische Biihne, p. 41) conjectures 6 Aaos (sic), meaning that the presence of 
chaff spoiled the resonance of the orchestra pavement. Regardless of the interpretation, 
this suggestion is unlikely, because Adas is a poetical word, and WYTTENBACH in his Index 
Plut. notes not a single instance of its occurrence in Plutarch. In fact, the conjectures are _ 
all unnecessary, and are due toa misunderstanding regarding the application of Aadés and 
the meaning of tru¢dAdw. Plutarch has reversed the original, changing the subject and the 
point of view. Aads refers to the audience instead of to the chorus, and tvdAodrar, which is 
used not only of sight, but also of any of the senses, has reference to hearing. Thus “the 
people do not hear so well” has replaced “the chorus is not so easily understood.” Cf. 


SOPH., Oed. Rex, 371: tuddAds ta 7 Sra tov te voov ta 7° Sumatra el, and HESYCHIUS: tvdAds* 
TieTar Kai ayti Tov Kwhds, 


PLUTAROCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES 17 


Gedtpwv, HTTov yeywvaow by tuPAovrat, and of yopol by o Aas. 
There is not a single word of the original but has been omitted or 
altered either in form or construction. Yet nearly every word of 
Plutarch echoes something in the source—a thing well-nigh 
impossible if an intermediary had been used. Thus, whether it be 
supposed that Plutarch was quoting from memory or was purposely 
giving a paraphrase with Aristotle before him, the departures from 
the original and the echoes of it are equally instructive. 

b) Plutarch compared with himself.— Absolute certainty con- 
cerning Plutarch’s sources can in most cases never be attained. 
Consequently, the preceding section, though only the most un- 
doubted instances were there used, cannot be in itself conclu- 
sive. Therefore the comparison of Plutarch with himself proves 
of considerable value, for, though in one or two cases the diver- 
gences can be explained upon the basis of a different source, such 
a hypothesis becomes rapidly untenable with the multiplication of 
examples. 

A good parallel is afforded by 


De glor. Ath., p. 348 F 
mpos a (the theatrical equip- 
ment just mentioned and quot- 
ed on p. 34, below) Adkwv avijp 
amoBAdpas ov KaKds €lzrev, 
ws dpaptavovow APnvaior weyara 


‘\ \ > \ ‘ 
THY omovdnv eis THY TaldLav KaT- 


and Quaestt. conv., p. 710F. 

/ / \ A , 
xapiev yap Tor To Tov Aaxkwvos, 
9 3 6 lal > 4 
ds, AOnvyot kawav aywvilopevwv 
Tpaywdav, Oewpmevos Tas TapacKev- 
as TOY xopnywov Kal Tas orovdds 
Tov OwackdAwy Kal THY dutAXaV 


ovK py cwdpovely THY TOALY ETO 


avaXicKovTes, Tocatrns orovdns mailovoar. 
C€ TovtTéoTe peydAwy amooréd\wv da- 

mTavas Kal oOTpaTevpdaTtwv éepdd.a 

KaTaxopnyovrres eis TO Oéarpov. 

In a the divergences between the antecedent of a and Tas.... 
dutXXav are considerable, but are largely due to the different cir- 
cumstances under which the story was told; the variation between 
atroBAéWas and Gempevos is without significance, but it is noteworthy 
that in the first account the occasion of the remark is in no wise 
defined, while in the second it was ‘‘at the performance of new 
tragedies.” A priori we might expect that the remark itself (6) 
would be reproduced without change, yet aduapravovow peydra 


18 PLUTAROCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


corresponds to ov« cwdpoveiy and ’A@nvaior to THY Todv, while 
eis»... KaTavadrioxovTes and peta .... mwaifovoay clearly hark 
back to the same original version. These changes are all verbal, 
it is true, but under the circumstances they are highly significant.’ 
Clause c is evidently only Plutarch’s own amplification of the 
preceding remark. 


Sulla, 2. Sulla, 36. 
MyrpoBiov 8& rev ad oKnvys Tivos ovTo yap of Tére wap’ adr@ (Sulla) 
épaov dueréXecev (Sulla) ere véos av. Suvdpevor peyotov noav .... Mytpo- 


Bios 6 Avowdds, ov Kaimep eEdpov 
yevonevov SuerérXer expt mavTos epav 
OUK dpvovpevos. 

It is not likely that both T@v a6 oxnvAs and Avowwdds occurred 


in the source; hence one or the other, or both, must have been 
added by Plutarch. 


Pelop., 29. De Alex. fort., p. 334A. 
a tpaywddv 5€é rote Oedevos (Alex- a@ ‘Adékavdpos 8’ 6 Depaiwy ripavvos 
ander of Pherae) Evpimidov e (éde dé rovT0 pOvov abrov Kadeiobar 
Tpwddas baroxpivdpevov Kal Le) KaTALTXUvELY THY Erwvupiay) 


¥ \ “ , 
b  wxeTo atv éx Tod Oedrpov, Pewpevos Tpaywdov 


g 


C Kat 7réuias mpds adrov éxédeve Oap- f éeumrabéorepov bh’ pdovyns duereOn 


pev Kat pdev aywvilerOa dia Tpos TOV OLKTOV. 
a al > \ > id 3 , = > a / 
TOUTO xElpov, Ov yap éxeivov kata- 6b avamndjoas ovv éx Tod Oedtpov 
ppovav amerOeiv, Oarrov 7» Badnv amrye, 
> , 
d aXX alcxvvopevos Tos woditas, ci Ad Sevdv civar A€ywv, ei ToTOvToUS 

/ , “~ > n 

pndeva raomote TOV br avtov do- amooghattwv moXitas 6pOnoera 

/ \ a_ ¢t tal 
vevomevov HAEnkws él Tots “Exa- tois ExaBys kai LoAvéevys rabeow 
\ ek 5 / cal > e 

Bys kal vOpouaxyns  Kakois errLoakpvwv. 

> / e > a 

6fOyncera Saxpiwv. g ovTos pev ovv puKpod kal Sixnv 


érpagato Tov Tpaywddv, OTe THY 
Yuxnv avtov Kabarep cidnpov 

éudrakev. 
Kvpirisov Tpwddas trroxpivdpevov appears only in clause a of 
the first account, which otherwise is practically the same as the 
corresponding section of the second account. Clause e is purely 


1 That Plutarch felt the same freedom in the citation of philosophical dogmas, even when 
they were in metrical form, has been pointed out by FAIRBANKS, Transactions of the 
American Philological Association, Vol. XXVIII (1897), pp. 75 ff. 


PLUTARCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES 19 


parenthetical and is inserted in accordance with the motive of the 
tract, which is to exalt Alexander the Great’s noble qualities at 
the expense of baser rulers. Also fis omitted in the first account, 
which, however, loses nothing thereby. In b @yeto amy cor- 
responds to Oarrov 7) Badnyv amye, and avarndjcas appears only 
in the second narrative. Clause c in the former report corre- 
sponds in function to the entirely different clause g of the latter, 
the diversity of conclusion being due to the different use which 
Plutarch made of the story in each case. In the first instance he 
is accentuating the tyrant’s cruelty in ordinary affairs by this 
account of his tender-heartedness in the presence of imaginary 
misfortunes, while in the second he is setting off Alexander the 
Great’s magnanimous treatment of artists of all sorts with the 
meanness shown them by Dionysius and other rulers. There is 
thus no need of assuming another source. It is not likely that 
either conclusion belonged to the original story, which probably 
contained no other details than that Alexander of Phere left a 
certain theatrical performance because he did not wish his sub- 
jects to see him weeping. When other particulars were needed 
‘‘to point a moral or adorn a tale,” they were added according to 
circumstances. In d aioyvyduevos corresponds to dewvoy eivat 
Aeyov, pnddva . . . . HAENKHS to ToOTO’TOVS amroodaTTwy, and 
’Avdpopayns to IloAvEévns. These changes are purely verbal, 
except the last, which seems to indicate that characteristically 
Plutarch sought to secure vividness by introducing into the story 
names of persons who figured directly or indirectly in the play, 
and chanced to select different persons each time.’ 

c) Plutarch compared with another user of the same source.— 
As I have already stated, this is the least satisfactory method of 
investigating Plutarch’s use of his sources. Accordingly, I shall not 
waste time and space in securing results that could only confirm 
those more certainly obtained by other means. However, that 
this method leads to results which are in harmony with those 
reached in other ways will appear from a comparison of Demetr., 


1For an interesting account of how ancient authors remodeled stories to suit them- 
selves cf. SMITH, American Journal of Philology, Vol. XXIII (1902), pp. 261 ff. and 361 ff. 

2These examples perhaps suffice. However, An seni, p. 797D, and Praec. ger., p. 806A; 
De Alex. fort., p. 331E, and An seni, p. T91E; cf. p. 33 below; and De Alex. fort., p. 334 DEF, 
and Alez., 29, may also be profitably compared. 


20 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


25, and Athen., 614 E, which are quoted together for another 
purpose on p. 49 below. 

d) Plutarch compared with other evidence.—The three pre- 
ceding sections have given us an insight into Plutarch’s manner 
of dealing with his sources as regards form. They show that of 
the four possible courses suggested Plutarch at least did not 
follow the first; 7. e., he did not preserve his originals literally. 
Because of our uncertainty regarding Plutarch’s sources for his 
theatrical references, this is as far as these methods will warrant 
us in going, and so we appeal to (d) to inform us which one of 
the last three courses the biographer pursued; viz., whether he 
retained the contemporaneous dress of the original, always brought 
the description into accordance with the facts of his own day 
regardless of historical accuracy, or did sometimes one, some- 
times the other. In other words, we shall now begin to consider 
his manner of dealing with his sources as regards substance. 

In Quaestt. conv., p. 674D, Plutarch says that, when the 
stewards of the Pythian celebrations had added tragedy to the 
three contests established from the beginning (émt tpici Tois 
Kabectaow €& apyhs, avrytn UvOiK@ Kai KiBapiotn Kai KLOap@do), 
they were unable to oppose the admission of all sorts of enter- 
tainment. Though the phrase which Plutarch uses for the first 
event (Iv@ixos avdnrjs) and its equivalent (wv0avAns) mean 
exactly the same thing in connection with this festival as the 
simpler term avAnr7s, the two former did not come into use until 
imperial times, as Frei has shown.’ In this small detail, there- 
fore, Plutarch has frankly adopted the terminology of his own 
time. 

Quaestt. conv., p. 724A. Theseus, 21. 

Kaito. Sox® jou pvnwoveverv ev Tots moujoar S& Kal dyavd dhacw adrov 
“Artixols dveyvwxus évayxos Ott mpO- (Theseus) év Ajda, kal rots wxdcr 
tos €v Anjdw Oyoeds ayGva roby TétEe rpOTov bm’ éxeivov potivixa So%- 
dréomace KAddov Tod tepod dotviKos. vat. 

. kat TOD Oncéws aitod ruvOd- 
verOar pyjcovow, otivt Adyw oivixos, 
ov dadvys od’ éAalas, dréoracev 
dywvoberav. 

1 De certaminibus thymelicis, pp. 60-62. 


PLUTARCH’S METHOD OF DEALING WITH HIS SOURCES 21 


The passage from the Life and the first part of the quotation 
from the Moralia show that the source employed simply ayéva 
movetv, and that aywvoferav is due to Plutarch. In Plutarch’s time 
ayovobérns was the regular title given the directors of such fes- 
tivals. Consequently, inasmuch as Theseus was the mythical 
founder of the celebration, Plutarch thought it not too much to 
give him the title that was current in his own day for its pre- 


siding officer. 
Pericles, 9. 
éAatrovmevos 5¢ (Pericles) 7Aovr 
Kal xpnpaciv, ap’ ov éxelvos (Cimon) 
avecdpBave tos wevntas Seimrvov Te 
; Cts A , , 
Kal’ npuepay To Seomevw Trapéxwv 
> / \ \ Ls > 
AOnvaiwy kai tos mpeaButépovs ap- 
guevvioy TOV TE Xwplwv Tovs Ppay- 
s > “~ 4 3 , e 
povs. apaipav, d7ws drwpilwow ot 
6 4 e€ ied 
BovrAopevot, Tovros 6 IlepixAns Kata- 
Snuaywyovmevos, TpemeTaL mpos THV 
Tadv Sypociwy Suavounv, cvpBovrevoar- 
tos att Aapwvidov tod Oindev, ws 
> / e 4 \ ‘\ 
ApicroréAns toropyKe. Kat Taxd Jew- 
an \ ~ , + 
pikots Kat duxaoriKxots Anupaciv aAAats 
te pucOopopais Kat xopyyiats ovv- 
dexdoas TO TAnOGos éxpyTo Kata THs 
e€ “Apeiov mayou Bovdjs. 


Arist., Resp. Ath., XXVII, 3. 
éroinoe O€ Kal picboddpa Ta diKka- 
, aA aA > 
orypia IepixrHs mpodtos, avTiOnuayo- 
A ‘\ 
yov mpos tHv Kiwwvos evropiav. 6 
‘\ , bid \ 4 tL seey 
yap Kipwv, are rupavvixny éxwv ovoiav, 
a \ \ XX , b 
MTPOWTOV LEV TAS KOWAS AnTOUpyias én - 
Tovpyer Aapmpws, ererta TOV SnpoTav 
erpepe ToAAovs* e&hv yap To Bovdo- 
/ “A deat , \ e 4 
pevy Aaxwdav Kal? Exadorny THY HE- 
2 , ’ Sry »” \ , 
pav €Oovri wap’ avrov exe TA peTpLa, 
” \ ‘ sf / » a 
ére 5 Ta xwpla mavtTa appakxta 7, 
orws e€4 TO Bovropevw THs dmwpas 
A erage At a Pp 
> 4 \ 87 4 \ 
drodavetv. mpos On Ta’THV THY xOpH- 
, > 4 f4 a A 
yiav émtAerouevos O LlepixrAns ry 
Lae , Lop | 
ovoia, cup PovAretoavTos avT@ Aapw- 
vidov Tov Oindev . . . . émel rots id~os 
HTTaTO, Siddvar Tos TOAAOCTs TA AUTOY, 
, \ tal 
Kateokevace pucOodopay tots dixa- 


oTats. 


On the strength of the first passage, it used to be stated in the 


handbooks that the theoric fund was established by Pericles (cf. 
Miller, Bihnenalterthiimer, p. 348), but the discovery of the 
Resp. Ath. has given us_the original passage which Plutarch was 
following (directly or indirectly) and the facts of the case, for 
Aristotle states explicitly (XXVIII, 3) that this fund was estab- 
lished by Cleophon. It is clear that Plutarch (or his intermediate 
source) has treated this passage in his accustomed manner, keeping 
many of the words of the original and the general substance of 
the thought, but working it all over so that the result is strictly 


his own. The only alteration worthy of mention is that he has 


22 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


amplified uscPopopayv tois Sixactais into Oewpixois Kal ducactixois 
Anppacw ar\Aras Te ptcOogopais Kat yopnyias. As these were the 
means used by Greek demagogues for centuries to ingratiate 
themselves with the people, he probably considered his expression 
a justifiable extension of Aristotle. Nevertheless, it constituted 
an anachronism. It is incomprehensible that he was really igno- 
rant of the author of the custom.’ 

The cases of anachronism just adduced,’ together with others 
which are considered later on,’ suffice to prove that Plutarch was 
not in the habit of merely working over his originals, retaining the 
technical terms appropriate to the occasion. Although it might be 
reasonable on the strength of isolated instances to assume that 
some of these anachronisms were taken over by Plutarch along 
with the rest of his material, and are to be attributed to his source 
rather than to himself, yet the instances found in the field of 
scenic antiquities alone are too numerous and taken from sources 
too diverse to permit us to explain them all away by this hypothesis. 
Whether he modernized always or only occasionally will appear 
most clearly from a study of the “‘special’’ passages, where mod- 
ernization is least likely to occur. 


1The controversy over Plutarch’s use of the Resp. Ath. has caused me to consider these 
passages here rather than in (a) above. If we could be sure that Plutarch was quoting 
Aristotle directly here, we might assume that his memory had confused the names owing to 
their proximity in the source. Similarly, he assigns (Alcib., 25) the murder of Phrynichus to 
Hermon, who is mentioned in another connection in the same chapter of Thucydides which 
contains an account of the murder (THuc., VIII, 92). 


2The naive account in Solon, 29, differs from those mentioned above in that the 
anachronism was probably not intentional. We cannot expect Plutarch to have known that 
the first actor in tragedy was not introduced until after Solon’s death. Moreover, the care 
with which he explains that poets used to take roles in their own plays indicates that he is 
striving for historical exactness. 


3 Cf. pp. 24, 25, 26, 37, 38 (twice), 51 (twice), 52, 54, 56, 59, etc. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH. 


WE are now in a position to examine the theatrical terms in 
Plutarch as they are divided into ‘‘general” and “specific” classes 
according to the principles above laid down. The investigation 
of theatrical terminology is, of course, no new subject. As early 
as 1870 Wieseler put the whole world of scenic investigators under 
obligation by his large collection of material in the Hrsch-Gruber 
Encyclopddie, Vol. IV, pp. 159 ff. His classifications, however, 
are unacceptable today, because they are based largely upon the 
uncritical and unhistorical view of the Greek theater that prevailed 
until recent years. Since his day exhaustive treatises by Christ,’ 
Miller,’ and Reisch* have continued the work thus begun. No one 
can now labor in this field without incurring a constant indebted- 
ness to these scholars. Nevertheless, the very comprehensiveness 
of their articles and the natural concentration of their attention 
upon the earlier periods have left room for further investigation 
in the later writers. It is convenient to subdivide the material 
into sections corresponding to the different terms. 


A. @édatpov.* 


This is the only theatrical term about which substantial agree- 
ment has been reached. The primary meaning of the word was 
(1) ‘‘spectators” or “audience;”’ cf. Herod., VI, 21: és daxpua érece 
To Géntpov. The easiest transition from this meaning was to (2) 


“the space occupied by the audience,” 7. e., the cavea; cf. Xen., 


1 Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, Vol. CXLIX (1894), pp. 27 ff. 


2 Biihnenalterthiimer (1886) and Philologus, Supplementband VII (1899), pp. 3 ff. 
MUtLuER’s article, ‘‘Die neueren Arbeiten auf dem Gebiete des griech. Baihnenwesens,” 
Philologus, Vol. VI (1892), pp. 1 ff., though not an exhaustive treatise on theatrical termi- 
nology like those cited in the text, contains much that has a bearing in this field. The same 
remark applies to BODENSTEINER’S valuable ‘“‘Bericht aber das antike Bihnenwesen,”’ 
Bursian’s Jahresbericht, Vol. XC (1896), pp. 1 ff. It is needless to add that Doérpfeld’s exca- 
vations and his keenness in restoration and interpretation have also played a leading role 
in the critical study of the subject during the last quarter-century. 


8 Zeitschrift fiir die dsterreichischen Gymnasien, Vol. XXXVIII (1887), pp. 275 ff., and 
DORPFELD-REISCH, Das griechische Theater, pp. 283 ff. 
4Besides the authorities just cited, cf. WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORFF, Hermes, Vol. XXI 


(1886), pp. 602 ff. The limits of space and the scope of the present article prevent a full 
discussion in these introductory statements. 


23 


24 PLUTAROCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


Hell., VII, 4, 31: xarediwEav eis 7d wera&d Tod Bovreutypiov Kal Tod 
Ths ‘Eotlas iepod kat Tod mpos TadTa mpoajKovTos Beatpou, referring 
to Olympia, which never had a theater for scenic performances, so 
that here the cavea of the stadium is evidently meant. ‘The 
whole theater structure” (3) was the next meaning developed, this 
usage being common in inscriptions since the middle of the fourth 
century; cf. C. I. A., I, 573: cara ras cvvOnxas tas wept 70 Oéatpov. 
The meaning of a term is very easily transferred from place to 
that which is done in that place. Accordingly, the next significa- 
tion of Oéatpov was (4) “theatrical performance” or “spectacle ;” 
cf. schol. Arist., Vesp., 1291: éndicato o KXéov pnkeére deiv eopo- 
dias emt Oeatpwv etoayeoOar (Rutherford). The last meaning 
was (5) “‘performance place;” cf. schol. Ran., 209: ovxy opavrar év 
T@ Ocdtpw oi Batpayor ovdé 6 yopds, aAN Eowey pLpovvTaL TOUS 
Batpayous. 

a) ‘“‘General” passages.—Most of these meanings are found 
in Plutarch. An excellent instance of (1) ina “general” passage 
is Quomodo adul., p. 68 A: @a7rep ot Tpay@dot yopod déovTat Pidov 
cuvaddvtav i) Oedtpov cuverrixpotovvTos.. There happens to be no 
instance of (2) in a ‘“‘general’’ statement. The most common 
meaning is, of course, (3); cf. Lycurg., 6: mpookjua Oeatpor. 
These words and their context (cf. p. 52, below) assume the exist- 
ence of theater buildings in the time of Lycurgus, the Spartan 
lawgiver, who of course antedated the Greek drama and dithy- 
ramb and all but the crudest forms of the chorus. These words 
are therefore anachronistic. For another example of (3) ef. De 
sollert., p. 974 A: wapiv o yépav Ovectraciavis év t@ MapxédXov 
Qeatpy.* This meaning is also employed several times figuratively ; 
cf. Praec. ger., p. 800 B: avros.& (the statesman) ®o7ep év Oeatpw 
(c. e., in public life) 7d Nourov dvarrerrtapév@ Biwcdpemos eEdoKer Kal 
KatTaKoo mer Tov Tpdrrov.’ Meaning (4) is likewise of common occur- 
rence; cf. De frat. amore, p. 478 C: ta davévta trapadetypara 


10ther examples are Vitae, pp. 859D, 942 B, 1031E, etc.; Mor., pp. 92E, 575 F, 748D, 
717 F, 795 D, ete. 

2 Cf. also Vitae, pp. TA, 196 F, 272C, 275F, 338 B, 364, 376 E, 452A, 856 A, 867A, 994A, 
etc.; Mor., pp. 424A, 43F, 68B, 71A, 87 F, 289D, 321 A, 338C, 348D, 349A, 414C, 417 F, 495A, 
504 B, 505 C, 521 F, 527 F, 554 B, 556 A, 705 BEF, 725 F, 749 C, 785 B, 796 F, 799 F, 823 BE, 977 D, 992 B, 
998 E, 1093A, 1096 B, 1125, etc. Plutarch also says explicitly that the Roman circus was 
included under this term; cf. Vitae, p. 272 C. 


3 Cf. also Vitae, pp. 372 E, 409 A, etc.; Mor., p. 253 B, etc. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 25 


(of brotherly love) tpay@dias Kal Oedtpous 6 Bios é&édmxe.' Of the 
last meaning there is no instance in Plutarch, nor indeed any- 
where else outside of the scholia, where év (7@) Qeatp@ occurs 
several times equivalent to the more common ézi (THs) cxnvis (of. 
pp. 44f., below). 

b) “Specific” passages.—A “specific” instance of meaning 
(1) has already been quoted (Flamin., 10) on p. 14, where the 
word is used of an audience at the Isthmian games in 196 B. C. 
When a report of the Sicilian disaster reached Athens, “the 
assembly cried out in anger” (opy) & ody cat Bor Tov Oedtpov, 
De garrul., p. 509B). If this be taken as meaning that the 
assembly was held in the theater, it is probably another case of 
anachronism, since the theater at Athens, and presumably else- 
where, was rarely used for that purpose till the latter half of the 
fourth century.” The fact that the word does not appear in the 
parallel account in Nicias, 30, points in the same direction.* Of 
(2) there is perhaps one instance; cf. Aemil., 24: év d€ 77‘ Poy Tod 
Synwov Oewpovvtos tmmiovs ayavas eEaipyns évérere Adryos els TO 
mpaTtov Tov Heatpou wépos. Since this would be the only occurrence 
of this meaning in Plutarch, possibly it would be better in this 
case to give the term a broader significance, which would bring it 
under the next category. Also in the ‘‘specific” passages (3) is 
the most common meaning; cf. Cimon, 8: Kiwov peta tov cvoTpa- 
THYoV TpoEeAOwv Eis TO Odatpoyv érroincaTo TH Pew TAS vevomiopEevas 
omoveas,. A passage that has been sometimes misinterpreted is 
Timoleon, 34: axOels 5é eis Tas Lupaxovoas TapehOwv eis Tov 
Sjov (Mamercus) évexelpe: mev Twa... . AOyov.. . . dueErevas, 
OopvBos S& mepurimtov Kal Thy éxxkrAnolav opov atrapaitynrov ee 
papas To iwatiov dua pécov tod Oedtpov Kal pds Te THY Babpwv 
Spdum dhepopuevos cuveppnte tTHv Kehadrny ws amroavovpevos. Wiese- 
ler (Ersch-Grub. Enc., p. 160, n. 5) gave Qéatpov in this passage 


1Cf. also Vitae, pp. 704 D, 709 F, 866 A, 920 A, 942 C, etc.; Mor., pp. 58 C, 341 A, 528 B, 609 AC, 
706 C, 755 B, 787 B, 799 A, 818 B, 821 F, 965 A, 997 C, 1104 D, etc. 

2 Cf. WACHSMUTH, Stadt Athen im Alterthum, Vol. I, p. 647. 

30f. also Vitae, pp. 309 E, 362 D, 474 B, 750 D, 867 B, 976 F, ete.; Mor., pp. 79 E, etc., for 
other examples of (1). 

4Cf. also Vitae, pp. 254 E, 293 F, 309 E, 316 C, 320C, 346 C, 362 C, 380A, 406 F, 458 C, 483 E, 
511 F, 569 F, 612 B, 640 D, 641 D, 647 A, 702 D, 755 C, 757 DE, 782 AB, 810 A, 812 E, 867 B (twice), 
905 A, 944 A, 975 B, 990 B, 1030 E, 1034 D, 1037 D, etc.; Mor., pp. 22A, 33C, 334A, 443A, 458 A, 
187 C, ete. 


26 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


the meaning of Oeata/, and Miller (Philologus, Spbd. VII, p. 69) 
that of cavea. Both apparently overlooked the context. Mamercus 
was attempting to speak; he must have been standing, then, in 
the orchestra, or on the stage, if the theater had one. When he 
saw that his case was hopeless, he ran across the orchestra and 
struck his head against one of the seats in the lowest tier. It is 
impossible that he should have gone among the audience or into 
the cavea. Such an assumption must presuppose his speaking 
from among the spectators—something entirely improbable.’ 
For meaning (4) cf. Phocion, 19: Katetye (tpaywdes) To Oéatpov ov 
Bovrscpevos mpoerOetv; and Quomodo sentiat, p. T7 EH: Kat rept 
Atoyévous bora TOD XuvaTréws itoTopovow apxyopuevov dirocodeiv, ws 
"AOnvaiow Hv éoptn Kal Setrva Snmoterh Kat Odatpa KxTrX. Since 
there are no datable instances of this meaning before the Christian 
era, it is generally regarded as late (Miller, zbid., p. 72); therefore 
the usage in these two “specific’’ passages is due to Plutarch, not 
to a source contemporary with Phocion and Diogenes.’ 


B. ’Opxnetpa. 


Primarily opyjotpa means “dancing-place” and was the name 
appropriately given xar’ é€oynv to the circular space reserved for 
this purpose in the Greek theaters; cf. Isocr., De pace, 82: 
éewnpicavto TO apyvpioy ets THY Opynotpay Tois Atovyatoaws eiaopépery. 
The Romans brought the word over into their own language and 
applied it to the corresponding semi-circular space in their 
theaters, which was, however, used for a different purpose, viz., 
for the seats of senators; cf. Vitruvius, V, 6, 2: i orchestra 


1 Another passage that has some bearing upon the position of the speaker in an assem- 
bly is Marcell., 20. Nicias, a citizen of Engyum in Sicily during the second Punic war, 
opposed the majority of his fellow-citizens by advocating the Roman cause. In fear of his 
life, he blasphemed the local divinities and then escaped by the following stratagem: jv 
Mev ExkAnoia TaV ToALT@Y, O bé Nixias petatd Te Aéywv Kai guuBovAevwv mpds Tov Symov e~aidyys 
apjkev €is THY yRV TOgHmna, Kal pixpdy SitaduTav, oloy eikds, novxlias aiv exmAnger yevouevyns, Thy 
kehadny émapas Kal jTepteveykav UVToTpOLw dwvy Kal Bapeia Kata pikpoyv ouyTeivwy Kal maposvvev Tov 
XV, ws Ewpa Ppixy Kal qwomy KaTexouevov TO OéaTpov, atoppias Td imartov Kal mepippyfawevos Tov 
XtTwvioKov, nulyumvos avanndjoas EOce mpds THY EEOSoY TOV Beatpov, Body UmTd THY paTépwv éAavverOat, 
Whether adjjxev eis thy ynv means that he was standing in the orchestra and sank to the 
ground, was standing on the stage and fell to the orchestra, or simply collapsed upon the 
floor of the stage, must from the ambiguity of the language remain uncertain, though the 
first view seems most likely. Cf. also Timol., 10 and 38. 


2Plutarch’s source for Phocion, 19, was probably Duris; cf. Frickn, De fontibus Plut. 
et Nepotis in vita Phoc. (1883), pp. 22 f. 


T rane 
ada, BEL BAD We 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 27 


autem senatorum sunt sedibus loca designata. In Roman writers 
of the late imperial period the term was used as meaning ‘‘stage;” 
of. Isid., XVIII, 43: quit pulpitus orchestra vocabatur. The past 
tense contrasted with the present at the beginning of the sentence 
implies that Isidore is giving the usage of other times than his 
own. His statement is probably due to a misunderstanding. 
Nevertheless, the notion grew and became current in the Greek 
lexicographers of the Byzantine period.’ 

a) The term occurs but twice in “general” passages. In 
Non posse suav., p. 1096B, Plutarch cites Aristotle’s query as to 
the acoustic effect of chaff in the orchestra: t/ dy7roTte TOV OedTpav 
adv axupa Ths opyyjotpas KatacKeddons 7) yovv 6 Aads TUdAODTAL. 
Fortunately, the original form of the question is preserved, and 
Plutarch has altered it enough to make it certain that he would not 
have retained the word opyyotpa without explanation, if it had 
acquired a different meaning since Aristotle’s day; cf. pp. 16 f,, 
above. The only safe inference, then, is that its fourth-century 
meaning was still current. Elsewhere (Quaestt. conv., p. 711B) 
a sophist is asked what form of entertainment (axpoapata) he 
considers most appropriate for a symposium, and advises: Tada 
pev ert Thy OvpéArAnv Kal THY opynaotpav éEedXavveay, elodyev bE... . 
Tovs €Xadpotatous (of Plato’s dramatic dialogues). ’Axpoapara 
was a general term for all sorts of musical entertainment, some of 
which were undoubtedly orchestral, so that this passage need not 
imply a change of application in the term under consideration. 
But before it can be determined what forms of amusement are 
included under each word, and whether each term refers to a 
different part of the theater or both to a single part, the mean- 
ings and development of the word @uvwéAn must be considered; 
cf. pp. 28 ff., below. 

b) The sole instance of opyyotpa in “specific” passages is 


Marcell., 21, where Epaminondas is said to have called the 


1IMULLER’scitations (Philologus, Spbd. VII, pp. 81-86) to prove that the usage came in 
earlier will not bear examination. Dro Cassius, LXII, 29 (cf. p. 59, n. 1, below), and LXIII, 
22, are both fragments preserved in the epitome of Xiphilinus, who is known to have been 
careless. Schol. ARISTOPH., Equit., 508, merely echoes the statements found in Tzetzes and 
others, and is evidently late, while the meaning of AUSONIUS, prolog. Lud. Sept. Sapient., 3, 
is entirely too uncertain to admit of confident citation. It thus becomes unnecessary to 
decide whether the encroachment of the Roman stage on the orchestra or the transference 
of orchestral performances to the stage was the cause of this development in meaning. 


28 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


Beeotian plain the “orchestra of war” (10 Bovwtiov rrediov “Apews 
opynotpav). |Plut.|] Reg. et imp. apophth., p. 193 EH, which 
repeats the apophthegm and explains the figure as due to the 
country’s being ‘‘flat and spread out” (vmriav cai avarrertapevny), 
shows that Plutarch has preserved the original form of the state- 
ment. The metaphor itself and the adjectives used to explain it 
are best understood in case opyynotpa had its original meaning, 
while the fact that Plutarch retains the term in this sense with- 
out elucidation shows that this usage had not yet become obsolete 
and that the meaning ‘“‘stage”’ had not yet arisen. 


C. Ovupédrn.’ 


@vpéry is probably to be derived from @veuv,’ originally meant 
“altar,” and was naturally applied to the altar in the center of 
the orchestra; cf. Eurip., Suppl., 63: Euorov defsrripous Peay 
Oupéras. The mpeoButodcKco: Ovpérar of Asch., Suppl., 669, 
must also be taken to mean “altar,” but not necessarily that in the 
theater. Now, as the orchestra and its functions centered about 
the OuuéAn, it was natural that this term should soon come to 
include the whole “orchestra’”’ (2) (as it did the whole @oAos at 
Epidaurus; cf. Ephem. Arch., Vol. X [1892,]| p. 69, Il. 106 and 
143); cf. Pratinas apud Athen., p. 617C: ris bBpis Eworev emt Aro- 
vuoidda ToAvTaTaya Ovpédav; Furthermore, as any name given 
to the altar would necessarily include the foundation, steps, or 
underlying platform of it, in process of time these parts singly 
acquired this name even in opposition to the altar itself; cf. the 
Delian inscription in Bull. Cor. Hel., Vol. XIV (1890), p. 397: 
TV Oupérnv tod Bwpod. No further development was then needed 
to permit the use of Ovpédn as a designation for any “platform” (3); 
cf. Plut., Alex., 67: avrov pév obv (Alexander) tira: ox édnv exdusCov 
OKT@ META TOV ETalpwr bTrép Oupérns ev UdNAG Kal Tepipavel Trac 
Temnyvias—a result toward which the popular association of 


1 Besides the authorities already cited, cf. also RoperT, Hermes, Vol. XXXII (1897), 
pp. 438 ff.; Frei, De cert. thym., pp. 6f.; and the consequent debate on the subject between 
BretHE and DORPFELD, Hermes, Vol. XXXVI (1901), pp. 597 ff., and Vol. XXXVITI (1902), pp. 
249 ff. and 483 ff. 


?Though some would connect it with 7:@évac, The uncertainty was shared by ancient 
authorities; cf. CRAMER, Anecd. Oxon., Vol. II, p. 449: @upéAat, ot Bwpot amd rod OverOat m7] 
TiWecGar; Etymol, Gud., p. 226, 44; and schol. Luctran, De saltat., 76 (Vol. V, p. 327, Lehmann). 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 29 


Oupérn with Ovpéduov would largely contribute. As already noted, 
one of the easiest lines of development is from the meaning of 
place to that which is done in that place. Accordingly, @upérn 
came to mean also (4) “orchestral or thymelic performance;” ‘cf. 
the epitaph by Hedylus of the third century B. C., preserved in 
Athen., p. 176C: <rotto> Oé€wv o povavros vr’ jpiov o yAuKds OtKEL 
avAnTys, wiwov n’v OvpédAnot Xapis, where the combination of 
Biwov with OvpérAnot shows that the latter has the meaning just 
suggested.’ In the Roman theater, where the orchestral space 
was occupied by spectators and every kind of performance was pre- 
sented upon the stage, @uuéAy naturally came to mean “‘stage” (5). 
The same thing occurred in Asia Minor, where most of the thy- 
melic performances had been elevated above the level of the 
orchestra; cf. Artemid. of Ephesus, Onirocr., Il, 3, p. 84: 
yuvatkeia O€ éo ONS ayapmols povors cupdpéper Kal Tos él OupédrnV ava- 
Baivovow, the last phrase of which is explained by what immedi- 
ately follows: ot dé da 76 év TH bTroKpice EOos weyaras épyacias Kal 
puaborvs Aj Yovra. I find no evidence that the term was ever so 
used on the mainland of Greece. 

a) The study of Plutarch’s usage is best begun with Quaesit. 
conv., p. 621B: Kkoomiwtaroy dé por Soxet rovodTos wv (such a 
magister bibendi as has just been described) To cupardovoy dia- 
durdétev nuiv cal wn mepidirecOar viv pev éxxrAnolav Snmoxpatikny 
vov b€ cxoAnV copiaTov yevouevny ads dé KUBevTHpLov, Elta Trov oKNVIY 
car Oupérnv. 7) yap ovy opate Tods pev Snuaywyobrtas Kal Sicalope- 
vous mapa Seimvov, Tos dé pereTa@vTas Kal avayiyvdoKovTas avTa@V 
TWa ovyypaupata, Tors dé mimo Kal OpynoTais aywvoleTodrTas; 
The items in the first sentence balance very well with those in the 
second ; to éxcAnolay correspond dyuaywyotvras and diucalopevous ; 
to cYoANY codicTovD, pedeTa@vTas and avayyvocKovtas; to sKNVHDY, 
piwos; and to OupéAnv, opynotais.” Only «cuBSevryjpiov is without 
amplification, and it was too plain to need it. This passage alone, 
then, would inform us that there was a contrast between the oxnv7 


1So far as I am aware, this meaning has never been recognized in the handbooks. 


2MedAetaw is used of the school also in De poet. aud., p. 35 F, quoted on p. 34, below, and 
the same contrast between oxynv7y and 6uuéAn, and mimes and dancing occurs also in C. I. G., 
6750: ddéav dwvacocay évi oxnvaior AaBovoay (the mime Basilla) mavroins aperns év petwors, elra 
xopotae moAAadkts ev OupéAats, 


30 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


and the Quvyzédn, and that mimes belonged to the former and 
dancing to the latter; in other words, that @vuédn still meant 
“orchestra.” 

We are now in a position to examine Quaestt. conv., p. 
711B, which was held in abeyance from p. 27). It will be 
remembered that a sophist had been asked what form of enter- 
tainment (axpoduwara) he considered most appropriate for a 
symposium, and advised: raédAda pév él tiv OupérAny Kat THY 
opxnotpav eEedavvew, eiodyew dé (the lightest of Plato’s dramatic 
dialogues). In the seventh Quaestio a visiting Stoic philosopher 
had enlarged upon the implied criticism in Plat., Sympos., 176E, 
of those who were unable to engage in edifying conversation at 
symposiums and had to resort to the use of flute-girls for enter- 
tainment. At the beginning of the eighth Quaestio Plutarch 
demanded of the sophist what form of entertainment he could ° 
commend, and received the answer quoted above. In the remainder 
of the Quaestio different speakers examine the suitability of various 
axpoduwata. They reject tragedy, mimes, old comedy, and the 
Pyladean dance, and accept new comedy, the Bathyllean dance 
(out of respect for Xen., Sympos., II, 16), and the use of the 
cithara and flute. Now, axpoduata is a term as broad as povorkoi,' 
and included both scenic and thymelic performances.” Which of 
these did the sophist have in mind when he used tadAX\a? Eivi- 
dently the flute (the subject of debate in the preceding Quaestio), 
and probably only such other amusements as were in common use 
for that purpose; for the following discussion was theoretical, 
and few of the items there mentioned would have occurred to him 
in advance under the circumstances. Now, the most usual items 
included under axpoduara (cf. Wyttenbach, Index Plut., s. v.) 
and the most common accompaniments of a symposium were 
aulodes, auletes, citharodes, citharists, etc.—7. e., thymelic per- 
formances—and the sophist need not have meant any other than 
these by raAda. If this interpretation is correct, OuyéAn and 
opynotpa mean the same thing and are here an example of 


1 Cf. Quaestt. conv., pp. 674 E and 675 C, where both names are given to the same items. 


2 Cf. C. I. G., 2820: &v re rots OupedcKots Kal oxynvixols ay@ou Ta Tpwrevorta év TH Agiaakpoduara 
QUTHY MPMTwSs ayayovcay, 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 31 


Plutarch’s fondness for doublets, from which either term could be 
omitted without loss of sense.’ 

In thorough accord with this interpretation is De Pyth. orac., 
p. 405D: Kal ov« a&soduev, 7 Oedy ayyeror Kal KypuKes eiot, NoyLKaS 
é&caoTa Kat capes (God in making known his will) dpdfev- rv dé THs 
Ilv0éas doviy cal duddexTov WoTrEp........ éx Oupédys, ovK avndvvTov 
ovdé AuTHVY GAN év péTPw Kal GyK@ Kal TAdTMaTL Kal peTahopais 
ovou“aTav Kal met? aVAOV POeyyouevny Trapévev akcovpev. The use of 
dudXexTov and per’ avdov seems to indicate clearly enough that the 
chorus, and consequently the orchestra, is referred to in the simile. 
Bernardakis’s conjecture (xopev7av) to fill the lacuna of eight 
letters found in two Parisian manuscripts, if accepted, points in 
the same direction. 

The term is found twice more in “general” passages, which 
are best explained by reference to other instances, though they 
are not specific enough to yield a sure interpretation in them- 
selves; cf. De cup. divit., p. 527F: ti réyes, &BérTEp’, Os Tis 
yuvaikos oheiAwv Trapereiv THY Trophipay Kal TOY Kdopo?, iva Tava7n- 
tat Tpupaca Kal Eevowavotcoa, THv oiKiavy TadAW KaddXAwT ICES ws 
Géatpov 7 Ovpédnv Tots etcvodo1; Hlsewhere Plutarch says that the 
poor need not be ashamed to plead their poverty as an excuse for 
their inability to vie with the rich at public functions. He con- 
tinues (Praec. ger., p. 822F): det 6% wadiota Kpatety éavTav év 
Tois ToLovTOLS Kal NT els Tredia KaTaBaivey Tefov immed payov- 
Mevov pyt’ él otddva Kal Ovpuéras Kal tpamélas mévnta Trova ios 
brrép SdEns Kal duvacteias Siaywufouevov. As stated, these passages 
are ambiguous, but probably refer to the orchestra and its splendid 
performances. 

An excellent instance of meaning (4) is afforded by Galba, 14: 
Kat Ta pev TP@Ta Tpopaceas eyeav Ta Népwvos éyxAnpata’ voy O€ 
TarBav mpodiddvac, tiva ddvov pntpos éykarovvtas n ohayiv 
yuvatkes, 7 Tolav aioovpevous OuwérAnv 7H Tpaywdiav TOU avTOKPAaTOpOS ; 
The assassins of Nero claimed that they had been actuated by ab- 
horrence of his crimes and of the way in which he had degraded his 
position by cithara-playing (@vuéAnv) and by taking roles in trage- 
dies (tpaygotav). Galba’s murderers had no such excuses to offer. 


1Cf, De cupid. divit., p. 527 F: 6éarpov 7 Oupédnv; Sulla, 2: oxnvis cat Oeatpov; Theseus, 16: 
Aoyetou kal oxnvis, etc. 


aye PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


There is still one more example of meaning (3) in the phrase aro 
Ths OuwérAns, which has been kept till the last because its interpre- 
tation required the preliminary discussion of éml rhs oxnvis, amo 
THS cKNVYAS, cKNVUKES, and Oupedxos. In its original theatrical use 
éml THS oxnVAS meant simply “‘on the playhouse side,” and referred 
to the space before and in the vicinity of the scene building. When 
first found in extant literature, however, the phrase had already 
become stereotyped and had no more definiteness of reference 
than év T@ Oedtpm. In at least two of the fourth-century instances 
of its use (Arist., Poetics, XXIV, 4 and 8) it indubitably included 
the chorus in its application, while it never expressly excluded it 
(ibid., XIII, 6; XVII, 1; and Demosth., XIX, 337). With the 
development of meaning of oxnvn from “scene building” to 
‘“‘nerformance place”’ this enlarged, tropical meaning of the phrase 
was a natural result, when the ‘performance place”’ to be desig- 
nated was the place for dramatic exhibition. For any other kind 
of spectacle in the theater—for example, the dithyramb, in which 
the oxnvy structure had no part—émt ris oxnvas would scarcely 
have been an appropriate designation of the place of the perform- 
ance, but rather él ris Oupérns (7. e., opxjotpas). Consequently, 
ol émi THS oxnVAS embraced all of the participants in a dramatic 
representation— v7oxpitat, yopds, monTns, and duddoxaros —as did 
tpaywoot from an earlier period. Now, if it were desired to dis- 
tinguish between the two kinds of dramatic performers, since o/ 
emt THs OuwédAns was already used of the dithyrambic chorus and 
could not possibly under normal conditions be applied to the 
actors, that term would naturally be used to designate the dramatic 
chorus as well, and o¢ émi tis oxnvis would be used in the restricted 
sense for the actors alone. I have already cited instances of 
the broader meaning of the latter phrase in Aristotle; curiously 
enough, the narrower sense is found in the phrase azo tis oxnvias? 


in the same author (Poetics, XII, 1 and 2, and Probl., XV, XXX, 


1This expression has given rise to much discussion; besides the authorities already 
cited, cf. RicHarps, Classical Review, Vol. V (1891), p. 97; REINACH, Revue critique, Vol. 
XXVI (1892), p. 450; JEvons in the Gardner-Jevons Manual of Greek Antiquities (1895), p. 678; 
Capps, American Journal of Archeology, Vol. V (1901), p. 31; and FLICKINGER, University 
of Chicago Decennial Publications, First Series, Vol. VI (1902), pp. 13 ff. 


2"Aro is, of course, only éri from a different point of view; cf. GILDERSLEEVE, American 
Journal of Philology, Vol. XVIII (1897), p. 120. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH Ba 


and XLVIII). Unfortunately, no example of él rijs Oupédns 
occurs in the fourth century, though it may well have been cur- 
rent then, since we do find @vpeduxds and oxnuxds (which are the 
equivalents of 0 és tis Oupédys and o éml THs oxnvAs, and followed 
the same line of development); cf. the words of Stratonicus (died 
before 310 B. C.) which are preserved by Charicles apud Athen., 
p. 850 C: yupKovs dé ayavas diaTiOérwoav ’Hreior, KopivOoe dé 
Oupedixots, AOnvaios dé cxnuxots,and Polemo apud Athen., p.699 A: 
(7ap@dav) mpatos etonrOev eis TOs Ay@Vvas TOs OupedtKods ‘Hynpwov 
(a contemporary of Cratinus). 

Plutarch employs ézt rs cxnvijs in its unrestricted Aristotelian 
sense; cf. An seni, p. 785 B: Dirnpova dé Tov cwpixov kai” AreEwv 
érl THS oKNVAS aywurComévous Kat oTehavoupevous 0 Oavatos KaTéraBe. 
It has commonly been thought’ that Plutarch meant that Alexis 
and Philemon actually died in the theater. In the immediate 
context he has been complaining that statesmen withdraw from 
public life much earlier than do men of other professions, and then 
cites the case of these two who up to the very day of their death 
were engaged in the active pursuit of their calling. There is, of 
course, no reference here to actors nor to a stage for them, but to 
poets who were contestants in the theater with their plays. In the 
case of an invitation Plutarch says that there are many things to 
be considered; cf. Quaestt. conv., p. 709 C: adda det cxorrety TpwTov 
TiS OKaNOY EoTLV. Eb ev yap OV ohddpa cuVHONS, AAN 7) TOV TAOVG (wv 
TIS 7) TATPATIKOV, WS etl oKNVAS SopupopyHuatos AamTrpod Sedpevos 4) 
mavu yapilecOar TH KAHoE TeTELaMEVOS Kal TLMaV, erayeTaL, Tapat- 
Tyté0s evdus. Cf. also De Alex. fort., p. 337 EH: ayoucrn yap 
nyemovias uToxpiTny (Aridaeus) évevonyaye (Meleager), waArov & 
ws éml oxnvys TO dvadnua Kooy SeEAAGE THS olKoupéevyns; An seni, 
p. 791 E: 0 & (Aridaeus) ®o7rep éml oxnvis Sopudopnua kodhoy jv 
dvoya Bactréews; and Demetr., 41: ws év udvm tobT@ (Pyrrhus) Tov 
Baotréwv eidwrov éevop@to Tis ’AXeEdvdpou TéApns, of dé ArAOL, Kal 
Ladtota Anuntp.os, ws érl oxnvis To Bapos UrroxpivowwTo Kal Tov dyKov 
Tov avdpds—a characterization very suitable to the theatrical Demet- 
rius. Now, in all these passages except the first, though perhaps 


10f. KAIBEL, Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encycl., s.v. Alexis: ‘‘ Die Anecdote, Philemon und 
Alexis habe der Tod ttberrascht émi tis oxnvijis aywrigouevous Kai orehavoupévous, vertragt keine 
scharfe Interpretation.”’ 


34 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


actors are more distinctly suggested by the figure than a chorus, 
still the particulars given are entirely too indefinite to warrant us 
in supposing that the latter is excluded from the application of 
the phrase. ’Azro tis oxnvijs is likewise used in a broad meaning; 
cf. Theseus, 16: 0 Mivas det dueréder KaKGs axovwv ... . év TOIS 
"Arrixois Oeadtpos . . . . GAN CrriKpaTyoavTes 01 TparyiKoL TOAAHY 
amo TOU Noyelou Kal THS cKnVAS adoElav avtod Katecxédeoav. The 
same thought is presented also by Libanius, Decl., Vol. III, p. 64: 
ovy opate TOV Mivw dewa tmacyxovta éri THs oxnvys.' Now, it is 
clear that, whatever may have been the original force of such 
expressions, év Oedrpois, 76 Tod Noyelou Kal THs oKnVHS, and éml THS 
oxnvas are here practically synonymous. Amator., p. 757 A: ovde 
yap Toor’ éotwy etreiv, OTe TH pev ” Epwre AovdopovvTat tives amréyov- 
tat & éxeivns (Aphrodite), aA’ amo pias oxnvis axovopev (contra- 
dictory quotations from different tragedies). ‘From the same 
platform” is our English idiom for the thought, but of course 
that must not influence our interpretation of the Greek. De poet. 
aud., p. 35 F: Kat yap Sixavov cai @pédipmoyv . . . . OTav Tots aTro 
TKNVNS AEyouevols Kal pos AVpay adopevas Kal pwEedeT@pEevols ev dida- 
oxarelo TA LluOaycpou dSdypata cal ta IlAadTwvos omoroyn. In De 
glor. Ath., which is a brief for the warlike accomplishments of 
Athens as against her intellectual triumphs, the poets and actors 
are represented as making a mapodos with the symbols of their 
professions, in the following words (chap. 6): év@ev pev 67 
mpocitwaoav vr’ avAois Kal AUpals TroLnTalL ... . Kal oKevas Kal 
mpocwreia Kat Bopwors Kal unyavas amd oKnvAs Tepiaxtous Kal 
tpimrodas émiiKious Komiloytes* Tparyikol O° avdtois Umoxpital ... . 
cuvitwcay ... . oxevov O€ Kal Tpocw@Teav Kal Evotidwy adovpyav 
kal unYavaev aro oxnvns Kal yopotra@v Kat Sopuddpwv dvaompaypa- 
TEVTOS NaS Kal Yopyyia ToAVTEAIS TapacKevalécOw. “Scenic appli- 
ances’’ is all that the Greek demands here, and that is a colorless 
expression. ‘These instances, then, are worthy successors of their 
prototypes in Aristotle. Ov azo tis oxnvns and Oupedixoi, how- 


1As Libanius is not accessible to me, I am indebted to NAuck, Trag. Graec. Fragm., 
(2d ed.), p. 200 for the reference and text. 


2Tt is noteworthy that oxnvi«ds occurs but twice in Plutarch: once in an untheatrical 
sense, Otho, 6, and once in the spurious treatise, De musica, 31. The figurative use of cvaxnvos 
in De aud. poet., p.27F, is not noted in the dictionaries. It is used of Euripides, who is 
dubbed Sophocles’s “ tent-mate”’ with reference to their professional fellowship as poets. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 35 


ever, have taken on a mutually inclusive meaning entirely foreign 
to fourth-century usage. In An seni Plutarch rebukes the men of 
his day for retiring from public life earlier than did not only the 
generals and statesmen of antiquity, but also the poets and actors. 
As examples of the latter class he cites Simonides, who won a 
dithyrambic triumph in his eightieth year; Sophocles, who com- 
posed the Oedipus Coloneus just before his death; Philemon and 
Alexis, who kept up their interest in their work till death actually 
came upon them; and Polus, who performed a notable feat of acting 
in his seventieth year. He continues, p.785 C: dp’ obv ove aicypdv 
€OTL TOV ATO TKNVNS YEpovT@V TOS ATO TOV BHwaToOS ayevvEerTéepoUS 
opacbat, Kal TOY Lep@v ws adANOAS éEtcoTapevous ayoveY atroTiMed Oat 
TO TONLTLKOV TrPOTwWTOV, OVK O10 OTFOtOY avTiMEeTAaXapBavovtas; The 
“theatrical folk’? whom Plutarch had just been discussing included 
tragic and comic poets, an actor, and (notably) a dithyrambic poet. 
Such a breadth of application would have been impossible in the 
fourth century. The statements that are made about Sulla’s boon 
companions, when put together, also produce interesting results. 
Sulla, 36: ovvhv (Sulla) wwors yuvarEi cal KiBapiotpiaws Kai Ovper- 
Kos avOpw@rros . . . . OUTOL yap ol TOTE Tap’ avT@ Suvapevor MéyLoTOV 
Hoav, PwoK.os 0 Kwumddos Kal LaprE o apxtpiwos Kal MntpdPros o 
Avoiwdds. We are surprised to find a causes and an apyiuipos 
classified under the generic term @vpedixo’. That the lysiode 
Metrobius should be so designated is, of course, in accord with the 
traditional meaning, but with this compare ibid., 2: MyntpoBiou dé 
TOV ATO TKNVAS Twos Epav dSueTéeXEcED ETL Veos WY. Again, in the same 
chapter Plutarch says: @o7Te ... . émel xtpios atavtoy (Sulla) 
KaTéoTn, cuVayayovTa TOV amd oKNVAS Kal Oeatpov Tors iTa“wTATOUS 
oonuépar mivery Kal dvatrAnktiverOar Tols ocK@mpact... . W@aTE 
pip@dois Kal opynatais TuWacos eivat. Surely no clearer proof that 
these expressions were interchangeable, and that each included all 
the particulars of the others, could well be asked for. Therefore 
Oupedixds is equivalent to povatKds.' 

It is now necessary to inquire the reason for the amalgamation 
of meanings in the case of @upedixds and cxnvixos, and their equiva- 


1Cf. JosEPuus, Antig. Iud., XV, 8: tots év tH povaotxy Siayryvowévors Kai Ovpedckois Kadov- 
uwévots, For the fact that movorcxds always included both @vmedAcxés and oxnvixds cf, FREI; 
De cert. thym., p. 8. Plutarch’s usage agrees with this; cf. WYTTENBACH, Index Plut., s. vv. 


36 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


lent paraphrases. A priori, it would seem most natural to suppose 
that this was due to the fact that Quuédrn and oxnvyn had both 
come to mean the same thing, viz., ‘“‘stage;” but, as already 
shown, these terms were far from being identical and still repre- 
sented a contrast. Consequently, this hypothesis is untenable. 
The origin of the blending probably arose from the association of 
dramatic and thymelic performances at festivals. Secondly, in 
the time of the early empire the old societies of Dionysian artists, 
which included both scenic and thymelic performers (cf. Aetia 
Rom., p. 289CD; De cap., p. 87 F; and Aratus, 53), were either 
reorganized, or entirely disbanded and then new ones formed 
under imperial auspices.’ The names of these new associations 
show much variety, but usually agree in containing the phrase 
» Ovpedixy obvodos* joined with the names of Dionysus and of the 
patron emperor. The earliest ruler mentioned is Nerva (C. J. G., 
6785), though the custom probably began somewhat before his 
day. It is evident that in this title @vuued«n (from the custom in 
the Roman theater, where all performers stood on the same level) 
included both oxnuxes and the old-fashioned @upedixos, and that, 
as these societies multiplied in every direction throughout the 
Roman world, the broader meaning of the term (and of its peri- 
phrasis o¢ ét Tis Oupérns) drove out of use the traditional signifi- 
cance of these expressions, regardless of the meaning that had 
been attached, or still continued to be attached, to @vwéAn in each 
locality. In consequence, sxnwxes, which now had to share its 
field with @vpedtxds as well as with wovorxds, disappeared (so far as 
Plutarch is concerned), while its periphrasis, which always had 
tended toward freedom of application, also followed the Roman 
usage and became synonymous with its rival.’ 

In view of this development there is nothing surprising in the 
fact that Plutarch uses 0 azo tijs Oupédns of a comic poet, though 


1Cf. POLAND, De col. artif. Dionys., pp. 19-21; ZrmBARTH, Das griechische Vereinswese n 
pp. 88 ff,; and Fret, De cert. thym., p. 8, n. 9. 


2Movoikyn svvodos occurs once, C. I. G., 4081. 


3It must, of course, be kept in mind that, regardless of the common blurring of the 
distinction between Oupedtxds and oxnvixds, these terms could still be employed in their 
earlier sense whenever it was desired to express a contrast between orchestral and dramatic 
performances; cf, VITRUV., V, 7, 2: tragici et comici actores in scaena peragunt, reliqui 
autem artifices suas per orchestram praestant actiones itaque ex eo scaenici et thymelici 
graece separatim nominantur. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 37 


Ouvpédy is itself restricted to the meaning “orchestra.’’ In his 
Life of Demetrius he points out the difference between the con- 
duct of Stratocles, the politician, and of Philippides, the comic 
poet, toward that fantastic hero. He concludes (chap. 12) his 
comparison with these words: todrov (Philippides) mév obv érirndes 
éxeivp (Stratocles) tapeOnxaper, T@ amo Tov BHwaTtos Tov aro THS 
Oupérns. The fact that these words could not have occurred with 
this meaning in a third- or fourth-century source shows that 
Plutarch has added them from the terminology of his day.’ 

b) Also of this term there is but one example in a ‘‘specific”’ 
passage, viz., Sulla, 19: tavrns Ta érwikia Tis payns (at Chaero- 
nea) #yev (Sulla) év OnBais mrept rHV Oldirrddecov Kpnvnv KatacKev- 
aoas OupérAnv. Miller (Philologus, Spbd. VII, p. 97) thinks that, 
as the Romans were fonder of dramatic than of musical contests, 
this Guzen was more likely a stage or platform than an orchestra. 


1[ have reserved for this place my criticism of FREI’s dissertation, De certaminibus 
thymelicis. From the fact that the words 6vmedrkds and oxnrixds do not occur till the close of 
the fourth century, and that povor.xds was in use from a much earlier period as a generic 
name for all sorts of musical entertainments, together with certain statements in Athenaeus 
which imply a transfer of certain performances to the theater at this period, Frei concludes 
that the so-called thymelic contests at Athens were held in the Odeum of Pericles till the 
time of Demetrius of Phalerum, who transferred them to the orchestra of the Dionysian 
theater; these performances were accordingly called ‘‘thymelic” because they were pre- 
sented in the @uuéAn, 7. €., opx7jorpa, in order to distinguish them from the dramatic produc- 
tions, which were termed oxyvixoi, from being given on the stage (oxnvy), which he assumes 
that this theater possessed; and finally this transfer was not made and these distinctions did 
not earlier arise at Athens because (1) of the prejudice against using a precinct sacred to 
Dionysus for non-Dionysian purposes, and (2) because up to the time of the Lycurgus 
theater Athens had no other place so well fitted for such performances as the Odeum. Con- 
sequently, since (2) did not obtain elsewhere, these distinctions may have arisen somewhat 
earlier at other cities, e. g., Corinth. Frei’s contentions are well ‘presented and clear, but 
are not free from defects. In the first place, I miss a discussion of émi (amd) THs oxnvfs and 
éni (amd) THs OvseAns— phrases which in my opinion are inextricably associated with his sub- 
ject. Secondly, he first accepts Bethe’s hypothesis that the Lycurgus theater had a stage, 
and consequently concludes that the distinction of names must be explained on the basis of 
difference in place of performance there (p. 14: haec ipsa certaminum in theatro editorum 
multitudo distinctionem expetivit, quae none genere, sed rectius simpliciusque ex loco petenda 
se obtulit. Quo enim tempore musici agones in theatro omnes vommitti coepti sunt, orchestra 
non iam solus erat locus certaminum agendorum, sed scaena ludis scaenicis celebrandis 
separata erat; cf. BETHE, Prol., p. 274), and then uses these conclusions to prove a stage at 
that period (p. 15: ctaque etiam ab hac parte luce clarius apparet, tragoedias comoediasque 
certe inde a IV. a. Ch. n. saeculo non esse in orchestra actas, quod mirabili pertinacia iterum 
iterumque praedicatur)—a notable petitio principii, which a study of Aristotle’s use of émi 
THs aknvns Would have spared him. Furthermore, Frei’s limiting the meaning of @vpéAy to 
“orchestra” in the derivation of @uvpedAcKdés is impossible, as appears from the resulting 
controversy between Dorpfeld and Bethe; cf. p. 28, n.1, above. Lastly, he presses unduly 
the fact that @vuedrcxés and oxynvixds do not occur before the close of the fourth century, 
since he can quote only three instances from an earlier period of povsikés, a term of undoubted 
age (cf. ARIST., Plutus, 1163; PLAT., Laws, p. 658AB; and C. I. A., IV, 2, p. 203, No. 8340, col. 
ii, 1. 47). 


. 


38 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


If Sulla’s tastes, however, resembled Antony’s, the opposite con- 
clusion would be more probable; cf. Anton., 56: wéa vioos (Samos) 
ef’ sepas moAAds KaTnuAcito Kat KaTerdddeTO, and ibid., 24. 
Though the passage is not susceptible of definite interpretation in 
itself, there is at least no reason for giving it an explanation 
inconsistent with the meaning of @vpédn elsewhere in Plutarch. 

Ouperdcxds occurs twice in “specific” passages; cf. Hab. Max., 
4: mpoedOav Sé 6 dixtadtwp (Fabius Maximus after his election) ets 
tov dyAov evEaTo Tois Oeois . . . . Odas povorkas Kal Oupe- 
Muxas afav. Livy (XXII, 9, 10) simply says ludos magnos. 
Miller (op. cit., p. 100) and Frei (De cert. thym., p. 8, n. 9) inter- 
pret Qupedixds as meaning “dramatic,” though more probably it 
is simply tautological. In either case, however, the use of the 
term savors of Plutarch’s own day, The other instance is Cato 
Min., 46: tod Dawviov catactabevTos ayopavopmov, Ta Te AAA TIS 
apyins émeperetro (Cato Minor) kai tas Oéas dueirrev ev TO Oeatpy, 
did0vs Kalb Tois OupersKois otepavous pév OV ypucois, aAN’ w@a7rEp ev 
’"Oduprria, Kotivwv . . . . év 6€ TO ETep@ Dedtpw Kovpiwv 0 Pawviov 
cuvapyov eyopnyel TOAVTEAWS* GAN’ Exeivov A7rodEtTroVTES 01 avOpw- 
mot petéBawvov évtad0a Kal ovvétratlov tpoOtuws vroKpivopeve TO 
Dawvio tov idsiaTnv Kail TO Katou tov aywvobétnv. From the 
lack of details the precise meaning of @uyedtxos here must, as Frei 
(op. cit., p. 9, n. 9) says, be left in uncertainty. One thing, how- 
ever, is clear—in a ‘“‘specific’”’ passage Plutarch has transferred 
the language of contemporaneous Greek customs to a Roman cele- 
bration to which they bore little relation. 


D. Kvn. 


xxnvn is etymologically connected with oxida, oxdTos, and 
oxipoy, and originally meant “booth” or ‘‘hut” for temporary use, 
without regard to the materials employed. The word does not 
occur in Homer, Hesiod, and the Homeric Hymns where «dww‘a is 
used in its stead; but when the tragedians treated Homeric subjects, 
they uniformly replaced the Homeric term with oxnvj. In Soph., 
Ajax, 1407, where the poet for “local color” retained xdzo/a, 
the scholiast wrote oxnv7j as its equivalent. Auschylus was the 
first extant writer to use oxnvj7. The most frequent application of 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 39 


the term was to military quarters—a use which persisted through- 
out Greek literature. But, of course, this application was not the 
only one. In the earliest dramatic performances, which were 
entirely choral, when no change of costume was necessary and 
the audience sat on all sides of the dancing-place, the members of 
the chorus came already dressed from their homes or neighboring 
houses. But when the development of the choral parts or the 
addition of an actor demanded a change of costume, a temporary 
booth was erected near the dancing-place for this purpose. <A 
great step in advance was taken when the happy thought came, 
whether to Auschylus himself or a contemporary, of bringing this 
booth still nearer the chorus and considering it the temporary 
abode of the actor.'. In the representation of camp scenes in the 
extant drama the dressing-room was so used, and its presence is 
often alluded to; cf. Soph., Ajax, 3 and 218; Eurip., Hec., 53, 99, 
and 733; Jon, 806 and 982; Troad., 189 and 176; Iph. Aul., 12; 
etc. So long as oxnvai was a correct untechnical designation for 
the structures used as dressing-rooms, or whenever the dramatic 
situation involved huts or booths, we cannot assume that the usage 
had become technical, and in the passages just cited both condi- 
tions obtain. Not until the dressing-rooms were built too sub- 
stantially to be longer called ocxnvai untechnically, and not until 
they were still so designated in plays which did not depict camp 
scenes, did oxnvn become a purely technical theatrical term. So 
far as is now known, Aristophanes was the first to take this step; 


cf. Pac., 730-31: 
ws edOacr padiora 
. ‘\ \ Lal , Le \ a) 
Tept Tas OKHVas wACioTOL KNETTOL KUTTALELY Kal KAKOTOLELY 


and Thesmoph., 655-58: 
xpy . . . . mepOpeta 


Thy wUKVA TAaCaV Kal TAs OKHVas Kal Tas diddous Siabpjoa. 
In neither of these plays does the scenic location demand the 
presence of booths. In the second passage the mingling of the 
real and imaginary situation is noteworthy. The scene buildings 
and the parodoi are actually present; the Pnyx is only the imagi- 


1Cf. WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORFF, Hermes, Vol. XXI (1886), pp. 597 ff., and Vol. XXXIT 
(1897), pp. 382 ff. 


40 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


nary location of the scene. Hence it is clear that axnvn has at 
last attained a technical theatrical meaning, viz., “scene building” 
(1). This seems to have been the only meaning in the fifth 
century, and it persevered as long as the Greek theater. 

An interesting example of this meaning is Plato, Laws, p. 
817 C. A band of strolling actors is thought of as making appli- 
cation to the rulers of the ideal state for permission to perform; 
reply is made to them as follows: pw) 6% dd&nTe juas padiws ye 
oTws Umas Tote Trap’ HuiVv dace oKnVvds Te THEAVTAS KAT ayopaV Kal 
KaddLhovous UmoKpLTAas etoayayouevous. Reisch (Griechisches 
Theater, p. 284) naturally explains that the actors wished to erect 
tents to serve as dressing-rooms, but Miller (Philologus, Spbd. 
VII, p. 13) sees a reference to a podium. There is, however, no 
reason for dissociating this passage from the ordinary idiomatic 
meaning of oxnviv myyvivat. The phrase is used of setting up a 
tent for the use of those that collect plumbago at night (Theophr., 
Hist. Plant., 1X, 19, 2); of putting up military quarters (Herod., 
VI, 12 and VII, 119; and Plut., Caes., 52; Demetr., 50; and 
Ant., 48); and in a more general sense in Bekker’s Anecd., p. 302, 
32—in all of which a reference to a stage is out of the question. 
Furthermore, in describing the same event, viz., the erection of a 
tent for Alcibiades at the Olympian games, | Andocides| (Contra 
Alcib., 30) uses oxnvnv éxnEav; Plutarch (Alcib., 12), cxnvav 
éotnoav; and Athenaeus (p. 534 D), oxnvnv érnocov. The Jewish 
Feast of the Tabernacles, which commemorated the forty years’ 
wandering in the wilderness and was celebrated by the erection 
of booths of green boughs and leaves in which the people dwelt 
seven days, was called cxnvotnyia; cf. John’s Gospel 7:2; 1 Mace. 
10:21; 2 Macc. 1:9, 18; 1 Hsdr. 5:51; Septuag. Deut. 16:16; 
31:10; Zech. 14:18, 19; and Josephus, Antig. Iud., IV, 8, 12. 
Moreover, Cleomenes III. of Sparta is said (Cleom., 12) during 
an invasion of Megalopolis to have had a theater erected (7n&a- 
pevos Oéatpov) in hostile territory and to have held a contest of 
Dionysian artists for one day. It is therefore clear that in such 
phrases wn yvvvat means no more than toravat, 

As already noted, the transition in meaning from place to 
function is one of the easiest known to semasiology. Thus 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 41 


Xenophon several times uses cxnvy by synecdoche of the enter- 
tainment given in the royal quarters (Cyrop., II, 3, 22 and 24; 
8,1; and VIII, 4, 27). Consequently, a similar development in 
the theatrical use of the term was natural. I therefore consider 
“dramatic performance” (2) the secondary technical meaning of 
oKnvn, * i tion”? and ‘‘plot” bei l 

nvyn, “scenic action’”’ an plo eing almost synonymous 
meanings easily derived from this. Excellent examples are found 
in | Democritus | fr. 249 (Mullach): 0 eéopos cxnvy, 6 Bios rapodos: 
nrOes, eides, amjdOes,' in Aristot., Poetics, XIII, 6, p. 1453a: émi 
TOV TKNVOV Kal TOV ayovev, and in arg. Soph., Electra (p. 97, 
Papageorgius’s ed. of scholia): #uiv év Bpayei ded7XwxKev 0 TroLnTNs 
TOV TOTTOV THS TKNVTAS.” 

Both primary and secondary meanings are found in the 
puzzling phrases tpayiKn oxnvyn and KwpiKy oxnvy, which deserve a 
separate treatment. The first instance of the former expression 
is Xen., Cyrop., VI, 1. 54.° Cyrus conceived the idea of mount- 
ing the lowest story of his siege towers upon wheels and having 
them drawn by eight yoke of oxen. Hach tower (including the 
wheels) was about eighteen feet in height, was fitted with plat- 
forms and battlements, and carried a complement of twenty men. 
The description continues: ével d€ mavra cuvectiKe ai’T@ Ta 
mepl Tovs mupyous, €kawBave Tod aywylou meipav: Kal TodUv paov 
> \ > \ fs \ s \ \ > 9 pe \ 
HYE TA OKTW® Cevyn Tov Tvpyov Kal Tos em’ avT@ avdpas i) TO 

\ / v4 \ a A 4 \ / > x 
oxevoghopixoy Bapos Exactov TO Cedyos, cxevav pév yap Bapos apd 
Ta mTévTe Kal elKoot Tddavta Hv Cevyer: ToD dé mvpyou, WaTrEp 
TpayiKhs oKnvns Tov EirNwV Tayos éyoVTMY, Kai elKOoLY avdpav Kat 

1The manuscripts assign eighty-six fragments to Democrates, whom modern scholars 
have been unable to identify, and therefore accredit the fragments to Democritus. This 
particular one DIELS, F'ragmente der Vorsokratiker, p. 425, considers spurious. It needs to 
be interpreted in connection with Palladas, Anth. Pal., X, 72: oxnvy mas o Bios Kai raiyvior, 
and Shakespeare’s words: ‘‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely 
players,”’ etc. (As You Like It, II, 7, 139 ff.). Shakespeare’s ‘‘ world” is the actual earth 
upon which men and women have their exits and their entrances. The life which they live is 
the play on the boards— exactly the thought of 6 Bios oxyvyj, which is guarded against mis- 
apprehension by matyviov. Democritus’s idea is similar, but not identical. According to his 
figure, the world (xécu0s) is a spectacle, the only means of access (mapodos) to which is 


human life. Each man at birth gains admittance, views the pageant, and takes his depar- 
ture. The interpretation is defined by «ides, which must refer to a spectator, not an actor, 


2 Cf. the similar use of dpauea in arg. III Sopu., Oed. Col.: émi ro Acyouévyw immiw Kodwve 7d 
dpaua Kecrar, 


3 The difficulty of this passage has been recognized for some time; cf. WIESELER, Ersch- 
Gruber Enc., p. 208, n. 32, and REINACH, Revue critique, Vol. XX VI (1892), p. 450. 


42 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


drdwv, ToUT@Y éyévero éXaTTOv 7) TevTEeKaideKa TadaVTA EKdoTH 
Cevryee TO ayoyiov. The interpretation of the passage in detail 
would pass beyond the limits of this paper, and I must content 
myself with a mere outline. Wieseler (op. cit., pp. 208f., nn. 32 and 
38) saw a reference to the unyavy; Reisch (Griechisches Theater, 
p. 284, and Zeit. f. d. dst. Gym., Vol. XX XVIII, p. 276), to the 
uprights of the scene building; and Miller (Philologus, Spbd. VII, 
pp- 25 ff.), to the upper story (Oberbiihne) of the stage—all interpre- 
tations inconsistent with the history of cxnv7 and hard to reconcile 
with the meaning of the whole phrase in most of the other pass- 
ages where it occurs. 2«nv7 used alone in the context would natu- 
rally have been thought to refer to the oxnvy otpatiwtikn; TpayiKn 
simply makes plain the reference. With much the same purpose 
THS TKNYNS THS év T@ Beatpw appears in the Delian inscription for 
the year 282.B.C. (Bull. Cor. Hell., Vol. XVIII | 1894], p. 162). Of 
course, the same certainty of application might have been obtained 
by the use of cwpixy instead of rpayi«n, for the same building served 
either purpose. “Its timbers had the thickness of those of a booth, 
the one used at tragedies (and comedies) I mean.’’’ When we 
remember that most Greek buildings were made of sun-dried 
brick, stone, or marble, and very few entirely of wood, we shall 
not be surprised that in choosing some wooden structure with 
which to compare the tower Xenophon found nothing else with 
which he could assume that Greeks as a whole were so familiar 
as the scene building. In my opinion, then, the phrase here is 
simply an extension of the primary meaning of oxnvyj. The 
difficulties involved in the small weights mentioned are no greater 
upon this interpretation than otherwise, and, I think, can be 
satisfactorily cleared up; but this must be reserved for another 
occasion. | 

From the secondary meaning of oxnvj these phrases were also 
equivalent to tpay@dia and kp@dia. This meaning is found as 
far back as | Plato| Clitopho, p. 407A: éyo yap, & LaxKpartes, col 
ovyyiyvopevos Todas éEerANTTOMHY aKovav, Kal mor eddKes Tapa 
TovS dAXouvs avOpewrrovs KdANOTA Aye, OTdTE EmITLL@V TOFS 


1 Of. De aud. poet., p. 35D: 6 tpayixds "Adpactos, and De esu carn., p. 998 E: rv év rH 
Tpaywdia-Mepornv, Of course, tpaytxy may be a gloss that has supplanted Gearpixy in the 
text of Xenophon, but such a supposition is unnecessary. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 43 


avOpwrros, eomep ert oxnvns' tpayicns Oeds, byveis Aéywv: Trot 
péperGe, wvOpwrrot, xTr. In later times the phrase was unques- 
tionably understood of the wnyavy7. The misinterpretation was 
doubtless due to passages like that just quoted, in which there is 
a reference to the deus ex machina. In fact, it may be traced 
back to this very passage in the Clitopho with great plausibility, 
for Timaeus, Plat. Lex., s. v. tpayixn oxnvn, gives the following 
definition: miyua petéwpov, éf’ ob év Gedy oKevyn tives TrapLovTes 
éXeyov, and this mistaken explanation Photius, s. v. tpayixn 
oxnvn, quotes word for word. Arrian, Dissert. Hpict., III, 22, 26, 
echoing the passage under consideration, is evidently thinking of 
the pnyavn, but at least has the merit of retaining the correct 
text. 

It is thus apparent that tpayi«n oxnvy early had two meanings: 
(a) “‘a scene building for tragic contests,” and (b) ‘‘tragic per- 
formance.” These meanings are easily derived and lie close to 
one another. Moreover, it is easy to understand how the mean- 
ing “nxavyn arose in later times. But on Miller’s supposition 
that it meant pnyavn, or Oberbiihne, from the first, it is incom- 
prehensible how the phrase came to mean tpay@dia in Demeir., 
28 (quoted on p. 46 below)—the solitary instance in all Greek 
literature! 

As the front wall of the scene building was the most conspicuous 
part to the audience, and as there the scenery was either applied 
or attached, this front wall alone, or finally the scenery itself, 
came to be called oxnvn (3). When Aristotle says (Poet., 4) that 
Sophocles introduced scenery, the term that he uses —oxnvoypadia 
—implies that this meaning of oxnvn was already in vogue. 
This, too, is the common interpretation put upon the expressions 
at eTavw oKnvai, ai KaTw oKnvai, etc., in the Delian inscription 


1The critical apparatus at my disposal does not record this variant which is mentioned 
by WIESELER (Ersch-Gruber, p. 209, n. 38) and MULuER (Philologus, Spbd. VIT, p. 27). The 
accepted text reads unxavjs. The correct reading, however, is preserved in the lemma in 
TimAzEuvs, Lex. Plat. (which can refer to no other passage in Plato), and Photius, and by the 
passage in Arrian, which is based upon this one. Another reason for suspecting the usual 
reading is that émi pnxavjs rarely occurs, but generally a7d pynxavjs; cf. LUCIAN, Philops., 29; 
ARISTIDES, I, pp. 47 and 78; II, p. 190, and schol. ad. loc. ; BEKKER’s Anecd., I, 208, 9; ALEXIS 
apud ATHENAEUS 326C; and [DEemosTH.], XL, 59, or €« wnxavqs; cf. LUCIAN, Hermot., 86, 
and seyen examples in Heliodorus; cf. WALDEN, Harvard Studies, Vol. V (1894), p. 43. A 
parallel to the construction and meaning is found in ArIsTot., Poetics, XIII, 6, p. 14538a: 
éml TOV TKNVOV Kal TOV ayoVwr, 


44 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


(Bull. Cor. Hel., Vol. XVIII [1894], p. 163), though I am not 
myself fully convinced that this and several other points in con- 
nection with the Delos theater have yet been satisfactorily 
explained. We must understand similarly the cxavonxa of the 
theater at Megalopolis (Hxcav. at Megal., supplement to the Jour. 
Hel. Studies (1892), p. 140, XXVIII), though the circumstances 
there were exceptional. The usage appears frequently in the 
later literature; cf. Dion Cass., LXIII, 6; Paus., II, 7, 5, ete. 
The phrase émt (amo) ris oxnvis has already been discussed in 
another connection (pp. 32 ff.), where it appeared that the expres- 
sion had a tendency to go over to the secondary meaning of oxnvy 
and mean little more than “in a play.”” Another development in 
another direction has still to be noted. Many a meaning of words 
and phrases is entirely due to association of ideas. Thus a word 
may in the beginning have a certain meaning (let us call this 2). 
A new meaning (let us call this y) may come to be associated with 
the original one (so that the meaning is nowa-+y). The original 
meaning may then be lost sight of (so that the result is simply y). 
It was precisely such a course that was pursued by this phrase in 
one direction. As already stated (cf. p. 32), it originally meant 
‘‘on the playhouse side” (x, to apply our illustration), and often 
may be roughly translated so. It is easy to see how the new 
meaning arose. For example, cf. schol. Eurip., Hippol., 171: 
érl THS oKnvys SetxvuTat (TO ExKkvKAHMA) Ta évdov mpatTopeva: “The 
eccyclema shows ‘on the playhouse side’ what is done within.”’ 
In this case ért Tis oxnvijs not only has its old meaning (a); there 
is also involved a strong contrast between the inner part of the 
scene building and those parts which were seen by the audience. 
The first member of the contrast was expressed by évéov; the 
second member (at least when such a collocation of words occurred 
for the first time) was not clearly expressed at all, but was easily 
implied in éwi THs oxnvis. When we try to give a definite expres- 
sion to this latter opposing part, we can think of nothing better 
than “performance-place” or ‘‘scene” (4). So in such a sentence 
él THS oKNVIS by unavoidable implication meant both ‘‘on the 
playhouse side and in the performance-place” (x+y). It remains 
for us to see how the meaning (x) faded. A good illustration 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 45 


occurs in schol. Arist., Nwb., 344: d9Xov ody bri ordca év Tois avo 
AEAEKTAL YOPiKA, OVK el THS oKNVAS dvTOS TOD Yopod ElpnTaL, AAN 
é&m E>T@TOS Kal KPUTTTOMEVOV .... OU yap HOUVaYTO évTOS ElvaL THS 
CKNVHS ai un KaTaTTaca pndéro: ‘It is evident that the choral 
parts were said while the chorus was not ‘on the playhouse side 
and in the performance-place’ |a-+-y]|, but standing outside... , 
for those that had not yet flown down could not be within the 
performance-place [y]”. It is plain that the meaning (x) has 
entirely disappeared, else évtos THs oxnvys would mean “within 
the scene building.” Once established, this new meaning spread 
rapidly and soon became common in many other combinations. 
This new development included within its scope the space occupied 
by both chorus and actors; cf. schol. Ausch., Humen., 35: map’ 
OAlyov EpnuLos 1) oKNV) YylveTaL, OVTE Yap O Yopds TH TdpEeTTLY, H TE 
igpea elondOev eis Tov vadv, The usage is especially common 
in the dramatic scholia, but is not infrequently found in Lucian 
and other late writers. 

Owing to the difference of structure in the Roman theater, 
where the place of both actors and chorus was a raised stage, 
oxnvy acquired that meaning also (5); cf. Pollux, IV, 127. A dis- 
cussion of the many other meanings of oxnv7 is not needed for 
understanding Plutarch’s usage. 

a) Of meaning (1) Plutarch furnishes several examples. Quaestt. 
conv., p. 621C, has already been quoted and discussed on p. 29, 
above. Another instance is Galba, 16: ras dé dwpeds, as Népwv 
édwxe Tois Tepl oknVnY Kal TadaloTpay KTrA. Oi Tepl oKnVHy is, of 
course, equivalent to of émi (a7) Ths oxnvis,’ “general” examples 
of which—viz., An seni, p. 785C, and Sulla, 2 (twice)—have 
already been quoted on p. 35, above. “General” instances of 
él (amo) THs oxnvis—viz., Quaestt. conv., 709D; An seni, p. 
785B, and 791E; De Alex. fort., p. 83837E; Demetr., 41; Theseus, 
16; Amator., p. 757A; De poet. aud., p. 35F, and De glor. 
Ath., p. 348 EF—have been cited on pp. 33 f., above. 

The primary significance of tpayi«? oxnvn appears in Quomodo 


1Cf. schol. Eurtp., Hippol., 7176: é&dyyedos 5é 6 Ta Twempaypéva Evdov THS TKHVYAS TO XOPO 
ayy éAAwr, 

2 Of. Dio Cass., LX, 23: oi wept thy oxnvnv texvitar, Tapa oxnvyv in Otho, 5, probably has 
no theatrical application, but is a mere reproach at the troops for being ‘‘ feather-bed 
soldiers.” 


46 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


adul., p. 56F: ri 6& Népwu tpayicny érnato oxnvyv Kal mpoowreta 
kal KoOopvous tepreOnkev; ody 6 TOY KONaKEvOYTwY Erratvos; Nero’s 
well-known pride in his tragic acting was, of course, made possible 
and fostered by the sycophantic praise of his courtiers; in other 
words, they furnished the required environment and accessories. 
The secondary meaning of the phrase occurs in Demetr., 28: THV 
Sé Sujynow aomep éx KOMLKAS oKNVAS TAAL Els TPAaYLKHY wETaYyoUOLY 
ai TUxYat Kal ai mpakes TOD avdpos (Demetrius); 7. e., the narrative 
changes from a joyous theme to a tragic one. Miller (Philologus, 
Spbd. VII, p. 24) gives this same interpretation, which, as I have 
said before, stands out of all relation to the meanings which he 
assigns these phrases elsewhere. 

Further instances of meaning (2) are found elsewhere; cf. 
Praec. ger., p. 823E: xpi... . wy tarevovtaba pnd éxrreTrA- 
xOar THY éx Oedtpwv Kal ortavetwy Kal TroAVaVdpiwv TpocLaTapMéevny 
Tois dyAols OdEav, WS OAiyor Ypovon éTLCaoav Kal TOs MovOMaYOLS Kal 
Tais oKnvais ou“od auvdtadrvopéevny, évtimov dé pundev pnde cemvov 
éyovoav. Since the performance itself was the only thing that 
had as fleeting an existence as the glory gained by the donor of 
the spectacles, no other interpretation is possible. A similar 
explanation must be given a passage which has never been under- 
stood, De esu carn., p. 996B: tHv 6€ weyadny Kal pvotnpiwdyn Kal 
amictov avopdor Sevrois, 7 dnow o Idatwv, Kal Ovnta hpovovory 
APYHV TOV OdyMATOS OKV@ MEV ETL TO AGCYH KLVELV, MOTE LADY ev YELMLOUVUL 
vavKrANpOS 7) NnXaVvAV aipe ToinTiKos avip év Oeatpw® oKNVS Trept- 
depouevns. Misled by the participle wreppepopevns, Reisch (Griech- 
isches Theater, p. 288) sees a reference to the scaena ductilis, and 
Miller (op. cit., p. 16) to the periactoi. But since a change in 
the location of the scenic action does not necessitate the use of 
the deus ex machina nor vice versa, these suggestions are unin- 
telligible. It must first be noted that wepipdper@ar is often 
employed of other than literal motion. Thus it is used of the 
youthful Dionysius who was ‘‘dizzy’’ with the responsibilities of 
his office (Dion, 11: véas wuyijs éEovcia pweydry Kai Suvape trepipe- 
pouevns), of Clodius Macer, who, being unable either to accept or 
reject the imperial dignity, was in a constant state of “wavering” 
(Galba, 6: év T@ pte Katéyew pnte adidvar THY apyny Stvacbat 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 47 


mepipepowevos), and in St. Paul’s injunction to the Ephesians not 
to be ‘carried about” with every wind of doctrine (Ephes. 4:14: 
Tepipepomevor TravTl avéum THs didacKarias); cf. also Caesar, 32, 
and Philop., 17. The parallelism of the figures must next be 
observed: (a) Plutarch (6) at the critical moment in his narrative 
(c) oxvet éte Kwetv THY apynv, (a) the shipowner (b) év xewaue (c) 
oxvet Kively THY vadv, and (a) the poet (b) cxnvijs mepipeponerns (c) 
aipe. THY pnxyavnv. It thus appears that & yeuau and oxnvis 
mepipepowevns perform similar functions in their clauses, each 
denoting that which impels the subject of the simile to a given 
course of action. Now, the deus ex machina was employed only 
when the difficulties became too great for any other solution. But 
this is exactly the thought which Plutarch expresses by oxnvijs 
mepipepoméevns, the choice of metaphor probably being influenced 
by the preceding nautical figure. When the play was “driven 
about” like a ship in a storm—z. e., when the plot became tangled 
beyond the possibility of disengagement by the natural action of 
the characters—then the poet resorted to the only recourse left 
him. The same idea is found several times elsewhere. Cf. the 
Iloénows of Antiphanes (Meineke, III, p. 106; Kock, II, p. 90): 

ere’ Stav pydev Sivwvr’ (tragic poets) eizety ére 

Kou.oy 0 ameipyKwotv év Tos Spdpacwy, 

aipovow womep SaKTvAOV THY pnXavIAV, 

Kal TOIs Jewpevoiowvy aroxpwoVvTws EXEL, 
Plato, Cratyl., p. 425D: e& py dpa 8x, @amEp of TpaywdoTroiol, 
émeldav TL aTropHoL, éTl TAS pwNnYaVas KaTapevyouot Yeors aipovTes, 
and Cicero, Nat. Deor., I, 20: ut tragict poetae, cum explicare 
argument exitum non potestis, confugitis ad deum. How closely 
oxnvn here approaches the meaning “‘plot” may be seen from the 
fact that Cicero uses argumentum to express it, though Antiphanes 
employs év Tots dpapacuv. 

A very clear instance of meaning (3) is Galba, 1: 9 6€ Tov 
Kaicdpwv éotia, 76 larariov, év éXdooou ypovm (than ten months) 
Téscapas avToxpdtopas wmedéEaTo, Tov pev elcayovTwY w@aTrEep dia 
oKnvns, Tov & é€ayovrwv. The subject of the participles is not 
expressed; possibly they are to be thought of as Qeia pryyara. 
The corresponding agent in the simile is the poet. The directing 


48 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


powers of the universe brought into the palace one ruler follow- 
ing immediately upon the exit of his predecessor, Just as a poet 
has one actor make his entrance as soon as another departs. In 
this connection the verbs could only be used of passing between 
scene building and performance place. Several meanings of 
oxnvn would be appropriate, but dua limits the application to the 
front wall of the scene building or to the scenery. Entrances and 
exits were, of course, made through the doors in the front wall of 
the scene building, 7. e., dia oxnvijs. 

Of meaning (4) there are several examples; cf. Amator., p. 
T49 A: evOds » mpodpacis, é& Ns wpynOnoav ot Doyor, yopov atte? 
To Ta0a Kal oxnvns Seitar, Ta T AdrAa Spdmatos ovdey éAXel7reEL. 
The story needed only a sympathetic audience and a place for the 
recital. This meaning is employed figuratively also in De facie, 
p. 940F: o ZvAXas vroraBov, “érioyes,” eirev, “& Aapmpia, Kal 
mapaBarov To Oupiov Tov oyou, 1) AAOns Tov pvOoV wamep els yhv 
éEoxetdas Kal ovyxéns TO Spaua Tovpov étépay exov oKnviv Kal 
dudGeow.”” Sulla’s narrative had a location and theme at variance 
with what Lamprias had just been saying. Still another 
instance of this usage is Theseus, 29: etot pévtor Adyou Tept 
yapov Onodws kal repo, THY oxnvnv Svatredevydtes. Plutarch 
has just been relating Theseus’s relations with Phaedra, which 
had been dramatically treated by Euripides and others. He adds 
that Theseus had had other matrimonial experiences which had 
escaped representation on the scene. Of meaning (5) I find no 
example in Plutarch. 

b) Of meaning (1), viz., “‘scene building,” there are several 
instances ; cf. Aratus, 23: avTos aro THs oKnVAS els wéoov TponrOe; 
and Demetr., 34: dmdos pev ovveppagke tiv oxnvynv.' A passage of 
some interest is Phocion, 5: kal pévtot Kal avtov Tote TOV Daxiova 
pact TANpovpevou Tov Oeatpov TeEpiTraTeiy LTO TKNVIY AVTOV OVTA TpPOS 
eavT@ THY didvoiav. This has usually been taken as meaning that 
Phocion was walking up and down ‘‘behind the scenes,”’’ and that 
is undoubtedly the customary meaning of the phrase; cf. p. 50, 
below. Now, id denotes (to paraphrase Professor Gildersleeve’s 


1 These two passages are discussed at length on pp. 56 ff. below. 
2 Cf. LANGHORNE’S and CLouGH’s translations, and MULLER, Philologus, Spbd. VII, p. 15. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 49 


phrase concerning é7) ‘“‘characteristic infraposition.” Conse- 
quently it must usually be rendered “beneath,” but also some- 
times ‘‘behind;”’ cf. Herod., I, 12; VII, 61; and IX, 96. This 
latter meaning is the one here required, but a@ priori the phrase 
might mean either behind the scene building or behind its front 
wall. Now, at Athens there was a colonnade behind the scene 
building since the time of the Lycurgus theater (Dérpfeld, 
Griechisches Theater, p. 60). Since this seems a more natural 
place for Phocion to be engaged in collecting his thoughts than 
behind the scenes, I prefer this interpretation. The phrase has 
this meaning also in Athen., p. 591A, who mentions a statue of 
Eros which was vmo THv oKnvny. 
The primary significance of tpayi«n oxnvn appears in Demetr., 
25, which is given in more detail by Athenaeus. 
Phylarchus apud Athen., p. 614 E. Demetr., 25. 

diroyerws dé Hv kal Anuyntpros 6 TLoAvopkyris, nv O€ Kal mavTwy aeX- 
ws dno. PvAapxos év TH extn TOV IoTopiov, ds ye Oéoraros 6 Avoipayxos 
kal thv Avowmdxov addAnv Komiys oxnvns ovdév aitro (Demetrius), xal 
Suahéepey édXeyev: e€revon yap am’ airys mavtas Aodopay eis Tov €pwra THs 
—diovAdrAaBovs* tév Te Bidvv xAevdlwv kal tov TIdpw, Aapias eAeye viv mpdrov 
peyiotous dvtas mapa To Avoirdyw, Kai Tas  éwpaKévar TOpyny TpoEpXo- 
Erépous TOV hidwy: mapa 8’ avTod Tlevkeotas Kat pevyv ék Tpayixns oKnVAs* 
Meveddovs, ére d¢ "O€vOeuidas. tadta 8 dxotwy 6 6 Sé Anpytpios edn THv 
Avoipaxos “éyw toivuv,” py, “wépvnv ék TpayiKns  <avtod mépvyv owdpove- 
oKHVAS OVX Ewpaxa eLvodoav, THY avAyntpioa Aawiav orépav elvar THs éxelvou 
Aeywv. atayyeAOevros Sé Kal TovTov mdéAw troAa- Invedorns. 
Bov 6 Anpnrpios py: “GAX’ 4 wap’ enol wdopvy 
cwhpovertepov THs Tap’ éxeivo IInverdrns fy.” 

It is likely that Phylarchus was Plutarch’s source in this place 
(cf. Haug, Quellen Plutarchs, p. 74), and consequently the minor 
divergences such as 7poepyouevny for éEcodcav, must be due to the 
latter. It is curious, however, that the biographer omits the first 
remark of Demetrius which led to the whole controversy, since 
he is usually fond of such things.’ Tpayien oxnvy is opposed to 
Kopixn oxnvn, which evidently must refer to a building of some 
sort because it is itself compared to an avA7. The adjectives are 
used not simply to show that oxnv7 has a theatrical rather than a 

1A significant fact for Wright’s third argument; cf. p. 11, n.1. 


50 PLUTARCOH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


military meaning, as in the Cyropaedia passage (pp. 41 f., above), 
but to add point to the jest. It is, in the first place, termed copixn 
because of the comic names borne by Lysimachus’s friends; it is 
then given the epithet rpayi«7 as an antithesis to Demetrius’s jibe, 
and because of his pompous manner of conducting himself; cf. 
Demetr., 41 (p. 33, above), and because harlots never were given a 
role in tragedy. Miller (Philologus, Spbd. VII, p. 16) and Reisch 
(Griechisches Theater, p.288) see in these passages a reference to the 
decoration. But this interpretation gives these phrases meanings 
of which there are no other examples and which would stand quite 
apart from their significance elsewhere. Moreover, in that case 
we should expect, not é&évar (mpodpyecOar) ex, but dve&cevar or 
éEvévan dua; cf. Galba, 1, on p. 47, above. Inasmuch as Lamia 
cannot even figuratively be said to have come from a wnyxav7, or 
Oberbtihne (the meanings which Wieseler and Miller propose 
for the Cyropaedia passage; cf. p. 42, above), while she was, of 
course, continually coming from Demetrius’s quarters, of which 
‘‘tragic’’ was a very appropriate epithet, it is reasonable to sup- 
pose that oxnvn has its primary meaning. We have already seen 
that these phrases had this meaning in Demetrius’s time, and, as 
Plutarch uses them without explanation, it must have been cur- 
rent usage in his day also. 

Of meaning (2) there happens to be no instance in “specific” 
passages. For (3) cf. Aratus, 15: wporepov . . . . tov Aiytrrior 
eOavpate (Aratus) 7AodTov . . . . vuvi d€ UTro oKNVIV Ewpakas TavTa 
Ta éxel Tpdyuwata Tpaywdiay dvta Kal oxnvoypadiay dros Huiv Tpoc- 
keyopnxev— words which are put in the mouth of King Antigonus. 
As just stated, this phrase means either ‘“‘behind the scene build- 
ing’ or “behind its front wall.” The latter is evidently the 
meaning here employed and is the more common; ¢f. schol. Arist., 
Nub., 294; schol. Ran., 257;schol. Aesch., Humen.,47; and Lucian, 
Nero, 9. The phrase has a stereotyped meaning “behind the 
scenes,” and is often opposed to él (ris) oxnvis, “before the 
scenes;’’ of. Philost., Vit. Soph., 1,9, 1: ots éwt oxnvis te kal b7rd 
TKNVS KPH WPaTTELv. 


1The point of Demetrius’s remark lay in the fact that slaves, who usually had short 
names, played a prominent part in New Comedy; cf. BERGK, Griechische Literatur-Ge 
schichte, Vol. IV, p. 141, n. 57, and NEIL’s edition of ARIST., Equit., p. 6, n. 1, 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 51 


Of (4) there are two examples. In Aet. Rom., p.289 D, Plutarch 
cites Cluvius Rufus in explanation of the term histriones: dnat yap 
(Cluvius) . . . . Ao~adn vocov év'Popn yevouevny (in 364 B.C.) mav- 
Tas omaras SiapOetpar Tovs él cKnvnv mpoepxopmevous: Senbetary ovv 
avrois (the Romans) é« Tuppnvias éXGety rrodXovs Kal. ayabods Texvi- 
Tas, @Y TOV TpwTEevoVTa OdEn Kal YpovoY TrEiaTOV éveunuEpodVTA TOIS 
Geatpos “lotpov ovoualec Oa: Kai dua TodTo Tavtas ‘iotpiwvas’ an’ 
éxeivov TpocayopeverOa. It is clear that éml oxnvny with a verb of 
motion is equivalent to ét oxnvjs with a verb of rest, and it has 
already been explained how the latter phrase gave rise to the 
meaning ‘‘performance place” or “scene.” Though we are not in 
a position to say so positively, it is extremely doubtful whether 
oxnvy had already acquired this signification as early as 364 B.C. 
Incidentally, we may also point out that it is agreed that societies 
of Dionysian artists did not arise till considerably later than the 
time here mentioned.’ A still clearer instance of modernization 
is De aud. poet., p. 19 E: o Evpumiéns eiireiv réyerar pos Tos Tov 
’LElova Aotdopobytas ws aceBH Kal prapov, “ov mévToL TmpoTEpoy avTov 
ex THS aKnvns eEnyayov 7) T® TPoY@ TpoondA@oa.”’ The context 
requires that é€« tis oxnvys here should mean either “from the 
scene” or ‘‘from the stage.” As no instance of the latter signifi- 
cance occurs in Plutarch, we must choose the former. But it is 
certain that in Euripides’s day the phrase could have meant only 
‘‘from the scene building,” which is entirely inapplicable to this 
passage. If such a sentiment was ever actually expressed by the 
dramatist, he probably said é« tis opynotpas or é« Tov Pedtpou, or 
employed the verb alone; cf. Xen., Hell., VI, 4, 16, on p. 12, above. 


EK. Upockjnor.’ 


The etymological meaning of mpooxnwov is ‘the front part 
of the ocxnvyn” or ‘‘the structure in front of the oxnv7.” The 
name is specifically attached to the colonnade in front of the 
scene building in the theater at Oropos by an inscription on the 
architrave (Dérpfeld, Griechisches Theater, p. 105; the dedica- 


1Cf. POLAND, De col. artif. Dion., p.9, and ZIEBARTH, Gr. Vereinswesen, p. 78. For the 
whole story cf. Livy, VII, 2. 

2 Besides the authorities already cited cf. NoACK, Philologus, Vol. LVIII (1899), pp. 1 ff., 
and PUCHSTEIN, Griechische Btihne, pp. 40-438. 


52 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


tion belongs to the first or second century B. C.). Similar 
inscriptions are found at Kalymna (Inscriptions in the British 
Museum, II, 231) and elsewhere. It is equally certain that in 
the Roman theaters the name was applied to the whole stage 
structure in front of the scaena; cf. Vitruv., V, 6, 1: linea 
ducatur, quae disiungat proscaenii pulpitum | = stage] et orches- 
trae regionem. Whether in the Greek theaters mpooxnviov ever 
was used of the top of the stone colonnade which replaced the 
earlier wooden structure is a mooted question and too involved 
for the present discussion. There is reason to believe that Plu- 
tarch at least never so employed it, and in my opinion his usage 
is in conformity with Greek usage in general. 

a) An unusually clear case is found in Lycurg., 6: ovdev yap 
@eto (Lycurgus) Tatra (ornamental buildings) mpos evSovdiav 
eivat, MaAXrov Sé Bramreav, Prvapwdas amrepyafopeva Kal Yavvous 
ppovnpate Kev@ TAS Ovavolas TOV ovETrOpEVOMEVOY, OTaV Els AyadpaTa 
Kal ypahas 7) mpocknua Oedtpwv 7) oréyas BovrevTnpiov noKnmeévas 
TepiTT@s exxdrnorafovtes arroPrérrwot. The language is manifestly 
perfectly general, being an explanation of Lycurgus’s enactment 
that Spartan assemblies should be held in places free of buildings. 
The only possible meaning for 7pocxjmov here is that it was that 
part of the theater which the assembly looked at; 7. e., the front 
wall. Plutarch has committed two anachronisms: he assumes that 
Lycurgus was familiar with a fully developed theater building, 
and that it had already come to be used elsewhere as the meeting- 
place of the popular assembly. It is, of course, impossible that 
he should ever have seen any kind of a theater, with or without a 
proscenium; cf. p. 24, above. 

b) The solitary instance of mpooxjmor in a ‘specific’ passage 
is Non posse suav., p. 1096 B: Kai <7l>' yadrxodv * AXéEavdpov év 
IléAAy Bovropevov trovnoat TO TpoTKHMWOoV OvK ElaceEY O TEXVITHS, WS 
SuapGepodvta Tav vrroxpiTav THY dovyv. This passage has called 
forth much ingenuity in the attempt to discover whether the 
ancients thought a background or a floor had the more effect 
upon a person’s voice. That they attributed influence to the 
latter, Puchstein, relying mostly upon | Aristot.| Probl., XI, 25 


1The addition is mine. The sentence stands in a series of five questions, each of which, 
with this exception, is introduced by ti or éa ri; manifestly they ought all to be alike. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 538 


(p. 16, above), has shown. That the influence also of the former 
was recognized, however, cannot be denied. Too little attention 
has been paid to the fact that the inquiries as to the effect of 
chaff in an orchestra and of a brass proscenium are cited as 
examples of the questions which interested Aristotle, Theophras- 
tus, Dicaearchus, and Hieronymus. Apparently the underlying 
principles were not known to everyone; these cases required more 
than the generally-known theories of sound. It is clear that the 
objection to a brass proscenium did not present itself to Alexan- 
der in advance, though he had the best of teachers, and had 
received instruction in this particular branch as well; cf. Alez., 7. 
That Puchstein can cite more passages on the effect of a floor 
than on the effect of a background is a simple matter; the latter 
was a commonplace, while the former was not. Furthermore, 
we do not know whether the ancients considered the architect’s 
objection valid. The upshot of the whole matter is that this pas- 
sage cannot be quoted as evidence one way or the other. Con- 
sequently, there is no reason for an interpretation inconsistent 
with the meaning for the term in Plutarch which we have 
already established. 


F. Idpodos. 


In the fifth century the passages leading along the scene 
building and into the orchestra were known as dé0d0; cf. Arist., 
Thesm., 658, on p. 39, above; or e’aodar; cof. idem, Nub., 326; Av., 
296, and fr. 388, 2 (Kock). Later they received the name zap- 
oda; cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic., IV, 6, p. 1128a and | Democritus] fr. 
249 on p. 41, above, and this name alone persisted. In theaters 
of the Romanized (Asia Minor) type the old wapoda led to the 
stage (by means of ramps) as well as to the orchestra. The desig- 
nation was employed also of the entrances to the stage from the 
side wings. 

a) It so happens that there is no instance of this word in Plu- 
tarch in a “general” passage. The usage is, of course, not 
doubted; cf. Pollux, IV, 126." 

b) Two examples of wdpodos are found in “specific” passages; 


1The term is used of the opening chorus of a play in De glor. Ath., p. 348 E, and An sent, 
p. 785 A. 


54 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


cf. Aratus, 23: émotyoas (Aratus) tais mapodou éxatépwOev Tods 
"Ayaovs, which evidently has the old meaning of orchestral 
entrances. The other instance is Demetr., 34: xataBdas (Deme- 
trius), do7ep of Tpayoot, dud THY dvw Tapddwv. Now, ai ave mapo- 
do: implies at Katw mapodo. The latter could only be the parodoi 
par excellence; 7. e., the entrances to the orchestra. In that case 
the upper paradoi may conceivably have been (1) the ramps leading 
from the orchestra paradoi to the logeion (7. e. of the Romanized 
theater with a stage; cf. Puchstein, Griechische Bihne, pp. 80 
and 96), (2) the central doors in the proscenium, or (3) side 
entrances to the stage from the parascenia (cf. Puchstein, 7bid., 
p. 98). Inasmuch as the ramps were scarcely the entrances 
kat é€oynv for the tpaywéo/, and the central doors could hardly 
be called side entrances, I incline to the last interpretation. 
In other words, Demetrius came from the parascenium upon the 
logeion (which is mentioned, in the context; cf. p. 56), and spoke 
thence. The very contrast between ‘‘upper” and ‘“‘lower’’ shows 
that the Plutarch had a transitional type of theater in mind, 
since in the old style of theater all the entrances to the place of 
action were ‘“‘lower,’’ and in the Roman theater they were all 
“upper.” This interpretation accords with the Nero theater of 
Plutarch’s day, but not with the Lycurgus theater. We have, 
then, another case of anachronism. 


G. Aoryetor. 


Etymologically Aoyetov means ‘‘speaking-place,” and it seems 
during its whole history to have been the vox propria for the 
place occupied by the speakers in the public assemblies—a fact 
which clearly appears from Praec. ger., p. 823B: dsaddAaxnrhv 

. . Tapéywv éavTov ov piKpov Huepas wépos emt ToD Bnuatos 7 TOU 
Aoyelou modTevopevos. The good citizen must spend much of his 
time in the law courts and the public assemblies. Here any 
reference to the Aoyeiov as the actors’ place is, of course, out of 
the question. The sophist Phrynichus (p. 250, Rutherford’s ed.), 
whose carefulness would scarcely allow us to suppose him mis- 
taken concerning the usage of his own time, states that tragic and 
comic actors performed in the logeion: od pévtot, évOa pév Kopwdol 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 5D 


Kal Tpaywdol aywvifovrat, Aoyetov épeis : évOa Sé of avAnTal Kal of 
yopol, opynotpay Kat pn OvuérAnv. Additional information for 
the same general period is afforded by the words Ayjya Oenrpov 
which appear in an inscription on the highest of the steps leading 
to the Phedrus stage of the theater at Athens (C. J. A., III, 239). 
The conclusion that this stage was the speaking-place of the 
actors and orators in the third or fourth century A. D.—1. e., was 
the Aoyetov-—is inevitable. An inscription from Patara for the 
year 147 A. D. carries us back a century or more—C. J. G., 
4283: OverjJla .... Hpoxra Ilatapis avéOnnev nal nabiépwoer 

. THY TOD NOYElou KaTacKEUNnY Kal TAAaKwWoLV—words Which can _ 
hardly be understood of any other meaning that has ever been 
proposed for Aoyetov than “stage.” Moreover, Vitruvius, V, 7, 2, 
supplies similar testimony for the beginning of the imperial period: 
habent .... Graeci.... pulpitum, quod dAoyetov appellant.’ 
On the other hand, there is good reason for believing that at 
Athens from the earliest times the orchestra served as the place of 
the speaker in assemblies which were held in the theater. Thus, 
from Isocr., De pace, 82 (p. 26, above), and Aesch., Ctes., 156, 
176, and 230, it appears that crowning and other public business was 
done in the orchestra. The latest reference occurs in Athenaeus, 
who preserves the contemporaneous account by Posidonius of the 
rise of Athenion to a tyranny at Athens in 88 B. C.; cf. Athen., 
p. 213 E: of éydou cvvdpapmovtes eis TO O€atpov eidovto Tov ’AOnviova 
oTpatnyov éml TOV OTAwY. Kal TapedO@v oO TrEpLTTAaTHTLKOS Els THY 
opynotpay ... . evyaplotnaé Te Tois "AOnvaiows Kai épn ctr. It 
thus seems that about the beginning of the Christian era the 
speakers in the Greek assemblies, when held in the theater, were 
transferred from the orchestra to a raised platform, which was 
known as Aoyetov. <A difficulty arises, however, from the fact 
that Aoyetov appears upon Delian inscriptions long before this. 
Thus for the year 279 B. C. (Bull. Cor. Hel., Vol. XVIII [ 1894], 
p. 162) occurs: ets 70 Aol ye |tov? THs oKnVIS . . . mov TeTPATNXUV; 


1The term occurs also in the scholia to ArIst., Ran., 181 and 297, and Hquit., 149, the 
writers of which must have had this same (Romanized) type of theater in mind. 


2 The restoration has been doubted by Reisch and others on the ground that there is not 
room at the beginning of the line for these letters; but Dorpfeld accepts it; cf. Gr. 
Theat., pp. 148 and 302. HoMO.uLE gave the reading A[oye]tov in his first publication of the 
stone and [Aoye]iov in his second; cf. Bull. Cor, Hel., Vol. XIV (1890), p. 401, and Vol. XVIII 


56 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


and for 180 B. C. (¢bid., p. 165): [EvAov . . . . KatexpyaOn eis | 
THY KaTaCKEUnY TOY TivdKoV THY él TO Aoyeiov. The dilemma 
thus arising has so far baffled everyone. To suppose that the 
orators occupied a different place at Delos than at Athens is 
highly improbable. The only hypothesis consistent with the 
known facts is that the term suffered a change of meaning (so 
Reisch, Griechisches Theater, p. 302), but precisely what its 
earlier meaning was has not yet been made out. 

a) Besides the instance already quoted (p. 54), Aoyetov occurs 
but once in “general” passages; of. Theseus, 16: émixpatnoaytes 
ol TpayiKol TOAAHY aro TOD Noyelov Kal THS oKnvHs adoElav avTov 
(Minos) catecxédecav. The collocation of words is similar to that 
in Pliny, Hp., IV, 25: ludibria scaena et pulpito digna; and it 
is fairly certain that Aoyetov here means “stage.’”’ Though the 
statement is not ‘‘specific,’’ yet, inasmuch as in the immediate 
context Plutarch has twice quoted Huripides as to the nature of 
the Minotaur, and Minos is known to have been treated dramat- 
ically by Sophocles in the Aaééados and in the Kapsxol (identi- 
fied by some with the Mivas), and by Euripides in the Kpjres, it 
is evident that Plutarch has the latter half of the fifth century in 
mind and has assumed the presence of a logeion in that period. 
Such an assumption, however, is highly improbable upon any 
theory of the term’s history.’ 

b) Aoyetov occurs but once in a ‘‘specific” passage; ef. Demetr., 
34: otTws otv tis médews (Athens) éyotans etceAO@v o Anunrptos 
Kal Kedevoas eis TO Odatpov aOpoicOHvat mavtas, STrOLS pev cUvE- 
hpake THY oKnvnv Kal dSopuddpos TO Aoyetoyv TepiérXaBev, avTos 5é 
kataBas, @omrep of Tpaywool, dua TOV avw Trapddwyv, ett MadXoV 
éxtreTVAnypevov TOV’ AOnvaiwy THY apynv TOD Adyou Tépas éTroLnTAaTO 
tov déovs avt@v. The plan here described was a favorite in 
antiquity and is often mentioned; cf. Aratus, 23: érel d€ acda- 
A@s eddKer Tavta eye, KaTéBavev eis TO Odatpovy amo THs axpas, 


(1894), p. 162. The text above is due to Mr. D. M. Rosrnson, who has recently examined the 
stone and will soon publish his readings in an article in the American Journal of Philology. 
He kindly allows me to announce that Ae appears at the end of the preceding line, and that 
consequently there is ample space for two letters (of which traces can be seen) at the begin- 
ning of the second line. There is thus no reason to suspect the restoration. 

1The fact that Aoyetov and oxynvy do not occur in [PLAT.] Minos, pp. 319 B-321 A, to which 
Plutarch is at least ultimately indebted for the thought, lends color to the supposition that 
he has added these details from the theater of his day. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTAROH Tei 


mrnGous ameipov cuppéovtos émiOupia THs te drrews avTod Kal TeV 
Aoywv, ols Euedre yphoOa mpods tos KopwOlovs. émictnaas 6é 
Tats mapddas éxatépwOev tors "Ayatods avTos amd THS oKNVIAS Es 
péoov mponrOe, . . . . dveENAOe Adyov, and also Pelop., 29; Polyb., 
XI, 27, 6; and Polyaen., Strateg., VI, 10. Now, in the Demetrius 
passage it is apparent that dmAas cuvéppate tiv oxnviv Kal TO 
Aoyetov meptéeXaPev is merely an amplification of the émortHcas 
Tais mapddos éxatépwlev of the Aratus episode, while the refer- 
ence to the upper parodoi and the tpay@doé shows that Aoyelov 
means “‘stage.’”’ The guards, then, were stationed in front of the 
stage, along the parodoi, and about the front of the scene build- 
ing—a description which ignores the fact that the Athenian 
theater had other entrances to the auditorium than those leading 
to the orchestra. The manner of Demetrius’s appearance is 
mooted. He is said to have ‘“‘come down through the upper 
parodoi like the tragic actors.” We have already (p. 54) seen 
reasons for believing that these ai dvw mdpodo. were passages 
from the parascenia opening upon the logeion. Demetrius, then, 
came from the parascenium upon the logeion and spoke thence. 
The expression used of Aratus (amo tijs oxnvis eis wécov mrponnrOe) 
is colorless, and might mean that he came from the scene building 
either upon the logeion or into the orchestra. It is reasonable, 
however, to explain the one passage by the other. But this 
whole interpretation is liable to one objection—the word cataBas. 
In theatrical usage this word is said to have meant ama)\AarTe- 
oAa.' This explanation must be considered doubtful, however; 
and, furthermore, we have here a case, not of exit, but of entrance. 
On the other hand, the literal meaning of the term is inapplicable, 
since the passing from the scene building to the logeion involved 
no difference in level.” To obviate this difficulty Miller (Phi- 
lologus, Supplementband VII, pp. 52f.) maintains that Deme- 
trius descended the flight of steps that led from the logeion to 


1Cf. schol. ARIST., Equit., 148. But see the comments thereon by WHITH, ‘“ The ‘Stage’ 
in Aristophanes,” Harvard Studies, Vol. II (1891), pp. 164 ff.; by Capps, ‘‘The Stage in the 
Greek Theater according to the Extant Dramas,” Transactions of the American Philological 
Association, Vol. XXII (1891), pp. 64 ff.; and especially by BODENSTEINER, ‘‘Szenische Fra- 
gen,” Jahrbticher fiir classische Philologie, Supplementband XIX (1893), p. 700. 


2This point is entirely overlooked by ROBERT in his discussion of the passage, Hermes, 
Vol, XXXIT (1897), pp. 448 ff. 


58 PLUTARCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


the orchestra. Against this view several objections must be 
urged: (1) these steps were in no sense side entrances; (2) we 
have reason to believe that there was only one such flight, and 
therefore Plutarch would have used the singular (d:a tis avo 
mapddov) rather than the plural; (8) in theaters which had a stage, 
that was the more natural place for speaking; and (4) the phrase 
@oTep ol Tpaywdo! is inconsistent with this explanation. An 
examination of the Aratus episode reveals what I conceive to be 
the true interpretation. There occurs the expression xatéBaive 
eis TO Odatpoyv amo THs axpas, of which I think cataBas is a con- 
densation. The original account probably told how Demetrius 
entered the city and made his headquarters on the acropolis, 
whence, his preparations completed, he descended to the theater. 
Plutarch retained the rest, but omitted the second item, without 
which xata8as is ambiguous.’ Kated@eiv and xataBaivovtes are 
only slightly less indefinite in Solon, 12: tovs cuvwpdtas tod 
Kvrwvos ixetevovtas thy Gedy Meyarrjs 0 dpywv él dikn KatedOeiv 
érecev’ éEavpavtas 6€ Tod edous KpdKnv KAwWoTHY Kal TaUTNS évoue- 
vous, WS éyévovTo Trepl Tas ceuvas Heads KaTaBaivoryTes, aVTOMATWS THS 
KpoKns payelons, opunoe svArAapBavev o Meyaxr7As Kal of cuvdp- 
xovres. The conspirators, as we know from other sources,’ were 
descending from the Acropolis; and yet this is far from being 
explicitly stated in our text. Similarly, avw is employed meaning 
‘on the Pnyx” in Nicias, 7: Néyeras yap éxxAnolas Tote ovons 
Tov pev Shuov KaOnuevov avw trepimeveryv Tory xpovov, If this 
explanation is correct, only the final stage of the action described 
by the participle is included in the following simile: ‘Upon 
descending from the acropolis («ata-) Demetrius came (-8as) 
through the upper parodos like the tragic actors.” As he could 


1 Notice the pregnant use of the word in Pyrr., 12: avaBas eis rhv axpémodw Kai Oicas TH 
Geo Kat KataBas, 


2 Cf. Herop., V,71; THuc., I, 126, 10,11; and especially schol. Artst., Equit., 445: oi cvyxara- 
KAerobevtes TH KvAwve ev TH axpoTdAct eis Tiv Kpiowv KaTéBnoav év Apeiw mayw. For other cases 
of careless transcription cf. Themist., 10, where it is said that in 480 B. C. the Athenians 
sailed ets rhv vaoov, meaning Salamis, though that does not appear from the context; and 
Pericles, 13, where we are told the musical contests were held xai tére kai tov dAdov xpdvov 
in the Odeum of Pericles. Now, Fret (De cert. thym., p. 12) has shown that toward the 
close of the fourth century these contests were transferred to the Dionysian theater. Plu- 
tarch’s source here is Ephorus (cf. FOWLER, Harvard Studies, Vol. XII [1901], pp. 212 f., who 
gives the bibliography), who must have written this portion of his history before the trans- 
fer was effected. 


THEATRICAL TERMS IN PLUTARCH 59 


have passed through only one of the parodoi, we must suppose 
that the plural is either a pluralis maiestatis or is due to the 
plural tpaypdoé%. Such I conceive to be the meaning of Plu- 
tarch’s words,’ and it accords perfectly with all we know of the 
theater of his time. Is it also a picture of what actually hap- 
pened in the fourth century? 

The uncertainty concerning the history and meaning of 
Aoyetov and concerning the fourth-century theater forbids a posi- 
tive answer. Miller (Philologus, Supplementband VII, p. 53) 
and Robert (Hermes, Vol. XXXII [1897], p. 447) reply affirma- 
tively and cite this account to prove the existence of a stage in 
the Lycurgus theater, while Reisch (Griechisches Theater, pp. 
302 and 281), Dérpfeld (ibid., pp. 348 and 395), and Noack (Phi- 
lologus, Vol. LVIII [1899], pp. 20 ff.) explain it away. To any 
believer in the Dérpfeld theory the passage must seem anachron- 
istic. Of course, the fact that Aoyetov occurs in inscriptions as 
early as 279 B. C. shows that it may have been current (with 
some meaning other than ‘‘stage’’) at Athens a quarter of a cen- 
tury earlier, and so may possibly have been in Plutarch’s source. 
In that case he simply retained the word in a different sense and 
added the ‘‘upper parodoi” and the rest. In view of my study of 
Plutarch’s methods, however, and of his comparative fondness for 
using Aoyetov,” I consider this supposition unnecessary. The case 
is strikingly like Theseus, 16 (cf. p. 56 and n. 1, above), where 
the preservation of the source clearly shows the operation of the 
modernizing process. 


1] know of but one other case of this verb’s being used in such a context; cf. D1o CASss., 
LXII, 29 (Xiphilinus): «ai wore cai émi thy Tod Oeatpov Opxjotpay ev maviyjuw Tivi Oéa xatréBy (Nero) 
Kal avéyvw Tpwika Tiva éavTov mowmmata, where the epitomizing process has left both the place 
and the circumstances uncertain. Dion’s own account would, I think, be in harmony with 
the explanation given in the text. 


2 Plutarch seems to use Aoyetov more than any other Greek writer. 


CONCLUSION. 


From the preceding study it is clear that Plutarch modernized 
not only in vague and indefinite allusions to past events (7. e., in 
‘“‘oeneral’’ passages), where nearly everyone occasionally lapses, 
but that also in specific references to a particular event at a par- 
ticular time and place in the past (7. e., in “specific” passages) 
there are not a few instances where he has translated the account 
into the terms of his own day, while in no case has he preserved an 
obsolete word or meaning (unexplained) for the sake of historical 
accuracy. The conclusion is irresistible that in theatrical matters 
it was his invariable habit to modernize. This rule is, of course, 
subject to obvious modifications; e. g., when he professedly gives 
a piece of antiquarian information, he states the facts regardless 
of later usage, and follows his source more closely." Thus, when 
he says that in the time of Pericles musical contests were held in 
the Odeum (Peric., 13; cf. p. 58, n. 2, above), his statement is at 
variance with the practice of his time. Again, he often uses an 
unfamiliar or obsolete word and adds an explanation of it (cf. his 
elucidation of Sevnndrkras in Ages., 21). Still again, he often 
retains vague and indefinite expressions which could be used with 
almost equal propriety of any type of theater (cf. the azo ris oxnvijs 
eis wéoov mpondGe of Aratus, 23, on p. 57, above), and sometimes 
did this without noticing that, if such a phrase were pressed, it 
would prove at variance with the theater of his day (cf. the afjxev 
eis THY YhV TO cOpa of Marcellus, 20, in p. 26, n. 1, above). But 
after all due allowances have been made, the fact remains that, 
whenever theatrical terms and institutions are mentioned inci- 
dentally and without explanation, and are not themselves the 
subject of discussion, he always adapts his authorities to current 
usage. Ignorance of this rule has caused an improper use of 
many passages in Plutarch. Thus, Miller (Bihnenalterthimer, 
p. 74) cites Phoc., 34, to prove that assemblies were held in the 
theater in the fourth century; Aratus, 53 (zbid., p. 403), to prove 


1Cf. the introduction to the SIEFERT-BLASS edition of Pericles, p. 65, 


60 


CONCLUSION 61 


that thymelic performers belonged to the ovvoda of Dionysian 
artists during the Hellenistic period; and Peric., 9 (¢bid., p. 348), 
to prove that the theoric fund was established by Pericles (ef. pp. 
21 f., above). Similarly, Haigh (Attic Theatre, p. 76, 2d ed.) 
uses Phoc., 31, to show that the agonothesia was instituted in 319 
B. C. And again, Robert (Hermes, Vol. XXXII (1897), pp. 448 
ff.) and Miller (Philologus, Supplementband VII, p. 52) employ 
Demetr., 34, to prove the existence of a stage in the Lycurgus 
theater at Athens. Some of these contentions are demonstrably 
wrong, others are undoubtedly correct. The point which I wish 
to make is that conclusions concerning theatrical matters cannot 
thus be drawn from Plutarch’s incidental allusions to the customs 
and institutions of preceding periods. On the other hand, recog- 
nition of this rule will result in a qualification of the strictures 
that have often been passed upon the biographer. Plutarch had 
little confidence in the results attained in the field of chronology, 
and still less use for them.’ His aim was not the discovery of 
the historical sequence of events so much as the portrayal of 
praiseworthy qualities. Consequently, the appositeness of a story 
to the character under consideration (cf. rpérovta T@ 70a and con- 
text in Solon, 27) always seemed more important to him than the 
mere fact that the story was declared chronologically impossible. 
And in this it has remained for a modern historian’ to vindicate 
his point of view and justify the place which he assigned to 
apocryphal anecdote. In addition to this, we find that he delib- 
erately sought vividness of presentation by modernizing his 
accounts and picturing his scenes amid the familiar surroundings 
of contemporaneous life. Thus, his temperament, purpose, and 
artistic sense combined to lead him from the straight path of 
historical exactness. The knowledge that this was conscious and 
intentional, and not due to ignorance, should do much to clear his 
reputation. 


1 Cf, WILAMOWITZ-MOLLENDORFF, Aristoteles und Athen, Vol. II, p. 290: ‘‘ Plutarch ist 
ein stilistisch hervorragender, historisch urteilsloser, chronologisch unbekimmerter Mann.” 

2Cf. FREEMAN, Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 276: ‘‘He might even have gone on 
to say that an apocryphal anecdote often throws as much light on a man’s character as an 
authentic one; current stories about people are often, perhaps generally, exaggerated; but 
the peculiar qualities which are picked out for exaggeration are pretty sure to show what a 
man’s character really is.”’ !' 


62 PLUTAROCH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


It has already been said (p. 8) above, that in the ‘“ general”’ 
passages Plutarch must have had in mind one particular type of 
theater, and that, too, one which was as familiar to his. readers 
as to himself; and that all information concerning it in such 
passages should be consistent with itself. Now, it results from 
Plutarch’s modernizing tendency that all this must be equally 
true of the ‘‘specific” passages as well. And that they are 
in perfect agreement with the ‘“‘general’’ passages and with 
information furnished by other contemporaneous writers simi- 
larly situated has already appeared. Jn other words, all theatri- 
cal information in Plutarch refers to a single well-known type of 
theater. 

At this point it is well to recall what public Plutarch had in 
mind and with what theaters it was most familiar. The friends 
to whom he dedicated his works and who figure in his dialogues 
are all Greeks and Romans of more or less prominence.’ We can 
assume, then, that by residence or travel they were all acquainted 
with the so-called Nero theater at Athens, and nearly all with the 
Pompey theater at Rome. Inasmuch as Plutarch expressly says 
(Pomp., 42) that the latter was of the Asia Minor type, and as the 
former was a Romanized form of the Greek (mainland) type, they 
may both be taken as examples of the same style. Exactly what 
information, then, does Plutarch give regarding these theaters? In 
the first place, they had a scene building or dressing-room (cxnvn), 
the wall or colonnade in front of which was known as the mpo- 
oxnviov, This oxnvy was furnished with a stage (Aoyetov), where 
stood the speakers in the public assemblies, the actors, mimes, 
etc.; while in the orchestra (opynotpa or OvpéAn) the dithyram- 
bic choruses, dancers, aulodes, etc., performed. There were upper 
and lower sets of entrances (7dpodoz), the former probably leading 
from the side wings upon the stage and the latter to the logeion 
and into the orchestra. These results, though not startling, are 
of value because they are certain, since based upon a method 
which eliminates all doubt as to the use which can be made of 
Plutarch as a source of information in theatrical matters, while 


10f. VOLKMANN, Leben, Schriften und Philosophie des Plutarch (1869), Vol. I, pp. 38-64; 
and MuuBL, Plutarchische Studien (1885), pp. 32-90. 


CONCLUSION 63 


the proper restoration of the theater ruins belonging to this period 
is still disputed.’ 

In conclusion, it may be in place to review the purpose of the 
preceding pages. Although we have gained a new interpretation 
of not a few obscure passages and have obtained a glimpse of 
first-century technical terminology, as pictured in Plutarch, which 
may prove useful in interpreting the remains, these are side issues 
and incidental. We have learned the use which can be made of 
Plutarch as a source of information in a particular field, and this 
is something which must be determined for several other authors 
before the statements in our handbooks will be guarded against 
every avoidable error. The application of the same method will, 
of course, vary with the circumstances of each case. Thus, Lucian 
can be treated most like Plutarch, for while he offers few instances 
of what I have called ‘‘specific” passages, and while his aims 
were widely different from Plutarch’s, he resembled him by being 
equally complaisant in his treatment of historical fact.” Whether 
he modernized always or occasionally will, of course, appear only 
upon examination, At the opposite extreme stand professed anti- 
quarians like Athenaeus (in certain parts of his work) and Pollux, 
who consulted handbooks of antiquities in the fields which inter- 
ested them. Here there is little to learn but the degree of exact- 
ness and intelligence with which they reproduced their sources. 
The latter, it is true, added his own knowledge to what he derived 
from his handbooks, so that in the result notices belonging to 
entirely different periods are inextricably commingled; but with 
both authors conscious modernization is clearly out of the ques- 
tion. Somewhere between these extremes belong writers like 
Pausanias, whose personal observations must be accepted at full 
value, but whose conclusions regarding what he saw and heard 
and read well deserve a critical study. And so each author will 
fit into the scale somewhere, the problems, precise methods, and 


1Cf. DORPFELD, Griechisches Theater, pp. 82 ff., and PUCHSTEIN, Griechische Bihne, pp. 
100 ff. 

2T note a few cases in point. In the conversation between Solon and Anacharsis (at 
Athens about 592 B. C.) Lucian causes it to appear that theaters were already used for pub- 
lic ceremonies and gymnastic contests (Anachar., 10 and 38), that public dramatic perform- 
ances were already held and associated with Dionysian festivals (cbid., 22, 23), and that the 
Kkon@dot and tpaywdoi already wore thick-soled boots (ibid., 23 and 32). 


64 PLUTAROH ON THE GREEK THEATER 


results changing somewhat with each. Thus the main aim of 
this paper has been to present a concrete illustration of a method 
which should prove serviceable in controlling most of these latter 
writers. In other words, it offers not only an examination of 
Plutarch’s literary method, but also a study in methodology as a 
suggestion for further investigation. 


Mod vt 
Wy 


Ry 
aFy yee is 
EN ie 
ety 




















sean 


131400 





Z ‘ TITLE a 
(=| Y. ey ! ES OMT. Fed we 
F ; b. | CG K iy ben cy e 





BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS 
CHESTNUT HILL, MASS. 


Books may be kept for two weeks and may 
be renewed for the same period, unless re- 
served. mn 

Two cents a day is charged for each book 
kept overtime. 

‘If you cannot find what you want, ask the 
Librarian who will-be glad to help you. 

The borrower is responsible for books drawn. 

on his card and for all fines accruing on the 


same. 


® 


aint 


a He 
ee, 


HN 
Reet “ r 
Shite ‘ ne My 
; ee 1G me 
sated a 


ort Seal 


Any 
tis 
are 


A 


PTR NaN 
Ae ewe alin 


TSA SRS Wie hie 
Nock 


; ited Ay 
er ack® 

sae AE Ay 

Pie TELE 


Ay 2x99 
dhe Lae 


2 Tenacay 
hye 


Fan eae t 
tins se 
iy 12) 
(ir 
Se WE ea he | 


; ae vats 
APA Naat Sy 
eANeat poeta 


A Seth's v4 <P? 


BAe a (le 


eG ay | 
- es 
+ 1) 


‘ ule WAH 


v i 


AF 
y 


Matyte 
ie 
Ha} i¢ 


x a 
Aged find ; 


ed) Fam pee ty 
DENS Foe oe 
iN AS A Ye 


ath 


‘ 
cae Fate 
ty} SPA 
DS fron WW iat fed AAS 


WAS! 
> 
vy mats Ae, 
Wy 


SORE a4) AA) wR 
J 


Palys! jeg 


Wage 
Rena 
4 aah beh iae 

“PDA tale 
Jia d ny fe. 


ane? Pat TP 


Seer tye 


pena 


aA 


fal aie 4 


te, 


Woe 


Ma Ro hs 
Davia PA de eee 
wv 


4p 


i us 


ae 


‘ H 
OuTAL ) 


Ate py rh Be iy si 


UY An 
Vehsy dy iye 


aay hut 
pata hans 


as 
Ry Ty, de) } 
eye STEALS ee ri 


i eats 


4) 
PEN Ary 


iyi 
eae he Mays Sta) hy A 


4 ATA 


Ve hep sists i , 


») 
4 “tek 
ve Hei) 


mht 


Mi Nae A 
?, 
Ava iy) 
ash 


vie . 
fi ni 


Tis. av 


LO er ee 


UNS Lage 4 


A vesey See 


te 
Win ivintes 
a 


: 
fudiean +5 


» aI 
?, , yy Ps ee 
pe 


a 
‘ 

A. vi 
Me Wat i 


YS te 


Me 6h a, 


ne 


* 


AeA ek! 
id ARS 


1 
uD vy 


of 
¥ ye 
ve 

‘5 


AN eat m~ 


fy < lets ; 
ea 


why 
ad gee a we 
Ray NGF at Aa shy 
Foy aes reine wt 
e em tyty PERN tf 
2) 


dpe 


eT AY 
frais Ries el EN saa & 
Sula piso) %¢ Ne 


” tht, 
Mites yea 


Piece ST ANY 
RY | ‘ 
SWRA ak 8 


a 

Ate ey yey a 

hi } 
of? 


Va Whe 





